alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE

$5,000                                                        Date: July 1, 1999


     FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,   Archer  Systems  Limited,   Inc.,  the  undersigned
("Payor"),  hereby  promises  to pay to the order of  Zamora  Funding,  Inc.,  a
Delaware  corporation,  ("Holder"),  the principal amount of $5,000.00,  payable
twenty  four (24) months  after the date first set forth  above.  The  principal
amount hereof from time to time  outstanding  shall bear interest at the rate of
six percent (6%) per annum,  payable on the date set forth  above.  All payments
hereunder  shall be in  lawful  money of the  United  States of  America  at the
address of the Holder  hereof or at such  address as shall be  specified  by the
Holder to GRQ  Financial,  Inc. If any  default  shall be made in the payment of
interest or  principal,  then the Holder,  by written  notice to the Payor,  may
exercise all of its legal  rights to collect the balance due unless  within five
(5) business  days after such notice the default  shall be cured by Payor.  Such
notice shall be deemed  given three (3) days after having been  deposited in the
United  States  Mail  properly  addressed  and  sent by  registered  mail to the
particular addressee, return receipt requested.

     Prepayments may be made in this note  voluntarily at any time and from time
to time, without penalty.


                                         Archer Systems Limited, Inc.


                                         BY:/s/Richard Margulies
                                         -----------------------
                                               Richard Margulies, President


                                       2
#### Robert J. Able, Respondent, v Joan M. Able, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 63]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of plaintiff for a downward modification of his maintenance obligation from $625 to $500 per week. In determining whether there is a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant downward modification, “the change is to be measured by a comparison between the payor’s financial circumstances at the time of the motion for downward modification and at the time of the divorce or, as the case may be, the time that the order of which modification is sought was made” *(Klapper v Klapper,*204 AD2d 518, 519). Plaintiff failed to prove a reduction in his income from the time of the divorce to the date of his motion, and, thus, the court abused its discretion in granting the requested relief *(see, Klapper v Klapper, supra,*at 519; *Schnoor v Schnoor,*189 AD2d 809, 810). The court, however, did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant only a portion of her attorneys’ fees and costs expended in responding to plaintiff’s motion *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [b]; *Rados v Rados,*133 AD2d 536; *Bushorr v Bushorr,*129 AD2d 989; *see generally, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Maintenance.) Present—Pine, J. P., Law-ton, Hayes, Wisner and Fallon, JJ.
#### Redding *vs.*The East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad.

In a suit by an employé against a railroad company for injuries inflicted by the negligence of a co-employé, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the injury was not the result of fault or negligence on his part. The question of negligence belongs peculiarly to the jury, and except in a clear case, Avhere there is no conflicting evidence as to whether the employé Avas in fault or was negligent, the court should not withhold the case from the jury by aAvarding a non-suit. Where the evidence upon this point was doubtful, it should have been submitted to the jury, and to grant a non-suit was error. 66 (?«., 170, 174, and citations.

Judgment reversed.

October 21, 1884.

Hall, Justice.

[Nias (or Ananias) Redding brought suit against the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad for a physical injury to him. On the trial, the evidence for the plaintiff shoAved, in brief, as follows : Plaintiff was a car-coupler for the defendant. It was the duty of the conductor or flagman to give signals to the engineer in coupling or uncoupling cars, and the train was under the general control of the conductor. At Baxley, the conductor went into the telegraph office, telling the plaintiff to leave two cars on’ the side track; the cab was uncoupled, and the train *386moved up and' stopped, thus leaving the coupling links tight. In order to get them “ slack,” so as to<get the pin out, plaintiff, after changing the switch, gave the usual signal to the engineer for that purpose.; he then gave the signal to stop, and went between the cars while they were moving slowly, expecting the engineer to stop. Instead of this, however, the engineer increased the speed, and ran back about a car-length and a half. Plaintiff moved back with the train; his foot was caught under the rail; and to save himself from being- crushed to death, he threw his body outside of the rail and his leg was run over. At another place, plaintiff says that he attempted to get out, and his foot got hung. He also stated that he went between the cars before they came to a complete standstill ; that if he had waited for this, he i;never could have got the slack.” The injury occurred before the cars were backed on to the side track.

On motion, the court granted a non-suit, and plaintiff excepted.]
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTRED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-106155) pertaining to the Cohesant Technologies Inc. 1994
Employee Stock Option Plan, and (Form S-8 No. 333-67127) pertaining to the
Cohesant Technologies Inc. Employee 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan of our report
dated December 16, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of Cohesant Technologies Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for
the year ended November 30, 2004.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
February 1, 2005
#### Judith ROMO; Vincent Taldone; Robin Tayler; Margaret Taylor; Randy Taylor; Ray Teets; Lawrence Tells; Kathryn Temchack; Charles Terry; Veronica Terry; Roberta Thorne; Margaret Tivis; Linda Todd; Delores Toohey; Debra Tourville; Dena Tsouals; Allen Turner; Carolyn Turner; Wanda Turner; Starlet Tyrone; Gloria Underwood; Henry Underwood; Janice Vanison; William Verheyen; Charles Vildibill; Sharon Wallgren; Pam Walsh; Sharon Walsh; Keesha Warrior; Latanga Washington; Darlene Watt; James Weiss; Wesley Welborne, III; Debra Wheeler; Marsha Whitt; Carolyn Whyno; Cecilia Wilckens; Sandra Wilemon; Stella Wilkerson-Clark; Joann Williams; Joyce Williams; Rose Williams; Shantas Williams; Mary Wilson; Rose Wilson; Patsy Winzey; Jimmie Wise; Ruth Wolfson; Juanita Woodson; Lynne Wysocky, single individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Margalit Corber; Rene Caro; Steve Dantzler; Linda Sowards; Lori Huisman; Johnny George, Sr.; Terry Perry; William Rackley; Angela Young; Pamela Rodriguez; Steven Syverson; Olga Caicoya; Janet Carroll; Rose Cash; Ulad Celentano; Virginia Costanzo; Kimberly Filligim; Armeldia Smith; Carla West; Joanne Bierzynski, Individually and As Next of Kin to Eleanor Wojcik; Sharley Morris; Wyomia Timmons; Dean Reinking; Daniel Thorne; Wendelen Ashby; Carmen Bedford; Claude Commodore; *910James Henson; Nancy Locke; Mildred Scott; Billie Burnett; Sheena Hall; Brenda Roberge, individually and as next of kin to Ernest Roberge; Deborah Woodsum; Richard Pascuito, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 13-56310, 13-56306.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 10, 2014.

James Paul Sizemore, The Sizemore Law Firm PLC, El Segundo, CA, Andrew Nathan Chang, Esner, Chang & Boyer, Walnut Creek, CA, Stuart Bruce Esner, Esner, Chang & Boyer, Pasadena, CA, Elise R. Sanguinetti, Khorrami, LLP, Oakland, CA, Matthew J. Sill, Sill Law Group, Edmond, OK, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Amy Bridget Alderfer, Esquire, Green-berg Traurig LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Karin Bohmholdt, Greenberg *&*Traurig LLP, Santa Monica, CA, Lori Gail Cohen, Victoria Davis Lockard, Esquire, Ginger Pigott, Esquire, Greenberg & Traurig LLP, Atlanta, GA, Elliot H. Scherker, Esquire, General, Greenberg Traurig PA, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused active judges, it is ordered that these cases be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion in *Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,*No. 13-56310, shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge McKEOWN did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
District Clerk’s LetterOnReceipt NOAatt.wpd

CHRIS DANIEL

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

CIVIL/FAMILY POST TRIAL

DATE: January 13, 2015

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS INFORMATION SHEET BY TRIAL COURT 

CLERK

Note to trial court clerk: You are expected to file the clerk’s record by the original due date. If 

you cannot, you should advise the Clerk of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals immediately in 

writing, stating the reason and the date by which the record will be filed. Generally speaking, 

for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two extensions from the original due 

date, each extension not to exceed 30 days.

Appellate Case Number 14-14-00924-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 2012-37056____________________________

Trial Court Number 234th District Court

______________________________________________________________________________

Information from Trial Court Clerk

The clerk’s record will be completed and filed with the appellate court clerk by the original due date, 

subject to payment arrangements being made.

X The clerk’s record will not be filed by the original due date. (Please state reasons below) 

 

I believe I can file the clerk’s record by _________ , I request days extension of time.

 

X Appellant has not made payment arrangements. Record costs and balance is $1064.00.

X Appellant has been notified that the clerk’s record is ready.

Appellant has made payment arrangements.

 CHRIS DANIEL,

 CLERK DISTRICT COURT,

 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

 BY: /s/ PHYLLIS WASHINGTON

 PHYLLIS WASHINGTON, DEPUTY

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/13/2015 3:31:00 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
AP1 R04-30-92

January 8, 2015

K. B. BATTAGLINI TBN #01918060

STRONG PIPKIN BISSELL & LEDYARD LLP

4900 WOODWAY DRIVE STE 1200

HOUSTON, TX 77056

PH: 713-210-4371

FX: 713-651-1920

Re: No. 2012-37056 SENT VIA: FAX ONLY

Dear Customer:

This letter is to inform you of the balance, which represents the cost to our office of preparing, at your request, 

the Original Clerk’s Record in the above numbered case. Rule (35.3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure requires that payment of this cost be remitted to our office prior to forwarding the clerk’s record to 

the Court of Appeals.

ORIGINAL CLERKS RECORD $1064.00

 LESS DEPOSIT PAID $0.00

DELIVERED TO THE 14TH COURT OF APPEALS

BALANCE DUE $1064.00

You may remit your payment in the form of attorney or law firm check, money order or cashier’s check, payable to Chris Daniel,

District Clerk, by mailing to: Chris Daniel, District Clerk, Attn: Civil/Family Post Trial, P.O. Box 4651, Houston, TX 77210-

4651.

 

Payment also may be remitted in person at the following location: Chris Daniel, District Clerk, Civil/Family Post Trial, 201 

Caroline, Room 250, Houston, TX 77002.

 

Please be informed that this correspondence is the only notice you will receive from this office regarding this payment.

 CHRIS DANIEL,

 CLERK DISTRICT COURT,

 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

 BY: /s/ PHYLLIS WASHINGTON

 PHYLLIS WASHINGTON, DEPUTY
#### Johnamsen *vs.*Tarver, Cashin *&*Company.

Where the defendants in a bill in equity demurred thereto, and also filed an answer in the nature of a cross-bill against complainant, if the demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed, it carried the cross-bill with it; and it was error in the court to dismiss the bill but retain the cross-bill for trial.

Judgment reversed.

December 2, 1884.

Blandford, Justice.
#### Maria Cristina ALDACO-DE CARRANZA, a.k.a. Maria Cristina Aldaco, a.k.a. Maria Cristina Aldaco-Elias, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73145.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 23, 2011.

Maria Cristina Aldaco-De Carranza, Fullerton, CA, pro se.

Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Cristina Aldaco-De Carranza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Contrary to Aldaco-De Carranza’s contention, Congress comported with equal protection when it repealed suspension of deportation and replaced it with cancellation of removal as the available form of relief for aliens who were placed in removal proceedings on or after April 1, 1997. *See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003); *Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 1161, 1163— 65 (9th Cir.2002).

*729We do not consider Aldaco-De Carranza’s contentions regarding hardship and her convictions, because her failure to establish continuous physical presence is dis-positive. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Aldaco-De Carranza’s challenge to the BIA’s October 8, 2008, order denying her motion to reopen because she did not timely petition for review of that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Singh v. INS,*315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

Joubin Nasseri’s motion to withdraw as counsel for petitioner is granted. The Clerk shall change the docket to reflect that petitioner is proceeding pro se. Petitioner’s address is: 1501 W. West Ave., Fullerton, CA 92883.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                    <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      MAR-31-2001          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         APR-01-2000          APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-2000          MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                   1,046,030            2,323,087
<SECURITIES>                                     0                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,988,604            1,072,578
<ALLOWANCES>                               313,214               78,214
<INVENTORY>                                      0              431,714
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         9,004,628            6,252,924
<PP&E>                                     827,131            1,460,259
<DEPRECIATION>                             173,093              170,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          29,808,340           37,778,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   13,475,578            7,039,930
<BONDS>                                          0                    0
<COMMON>                                    18,032               17,630
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0                    0
<PREFERRED>                                156,178              179,502
<OTHER-SE>                              16,158,552           30,541,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            29,808,340           37,778,444
<SALES>                                          0            8,864,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         6,863,934           10,934,198
<CGS>                                            0            8,153,179
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,212,082            8,293,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       2,881,942                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (7,183,466)         (11,067,646)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (7,183,466)         (11,067,646)
<DISCONTINUED>                         (13,606,150)                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0                    0
<CHANGES>                                        0                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           (20,789,616)         (11,067,646)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (1.17)                (.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (1.17)                (.70)



</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Capital Planning Commission

          - 1 CFR Part 601

# AGENCY:

National Capital Planning Commission.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC or Commission) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         on September 29, 2017. The document issued New National Environmental Policy Act Regulations.                    

# DATES:

Effective October 30, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Anne R. Schuyler, General Counsel and Chief FOIA Officer, 202-482-7223,                         *anne.schuyler@ncpc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In FR Doc. 2017-20614 appearing on page 45421 in the                     **Federal Register**                     on Friday, September 29, 2017, the following corrections are made:                

# PART 601—AUTHORITY [CORRECTED]

1. On page 45424, in the third column, below the table of contents for part 601, the authority citation is corrected to read: “Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4371; 40 CFR 1507.3.”

Dated: October 16, 2017.

Anne R. Schuyler,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2017-22696 Filed 10-18-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7520-01-P
NOTE                 Exhibit 10.20

$6,700                                                     Date: June 14, 2000


     FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  ArcusNet Corporation the undersigned ("Payor"), hereby
promises to pay to the order of Richard J. Margulies, an individual, ("Holder"),
the principal amount of $6,700.00 payable twenty four (24) months after the date
first set forth above. The principal amount hereof from time to time outstanding
shall bear  interest at the rate of six percent  (6%) per annum,  payable on the
date set forth  above.  All payments  hereunder  shall be in lawful money of the
United  States of America at the address of the Holder hereof or at such address
as shall be specified by the Holder to ArcusNet Corporation.

     If any default shall be made in the payment of interest or principal,  then
the Holder, by written notice to the Payor, may exercise all of its legal rights
to collect  the  balance due unless  within  five (5)  business  days after such
notice the default  shall be cured by Payor.  Such notice  shall be deemed given
three (3) days after having been  deposited in the United  States Mail  properly
addressed  and  sent by  registered  mail to the  particular  addressee,  return
receipt requested.

     Prepayments may be made in this note  voluntarily at any time and from time
to time, without penalty.



                                                 ArcusNet Corporation


                                                 BY:/s/Larry Weinstein
                                                 ---------------------
                                                       Larry Weinstein
                                                       President

                                        7
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3418 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3418

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to apply the 
 exceptions process for tiered formulary drugs to specialty tier drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2009

Mr. Ellsworth introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to apply the 
 exceptions process for tiered formulary drugs to specialty tier drugs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Prescription Drug Cost 
Equalization Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF EXCEPTIONS PROCEDURES FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN 
              TIERED COST-SHARING STRUCTURE TO SPECIALTY TIERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860D-4(g)(2) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395w-104(g)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new sentence: ``The exceptions process under this paragraph 
shall apply to drugs included in a tier of a formulary solely for very 
high cost and unique items (commonly referred to as a specialty tier) 
in the same manner as such process applies to any other drugs.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall apply to 
PDP sponsors and MA organizations for plan years beginning on or after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```