alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Susan Lipp et al., Appellants, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 671]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nelson, J.), dated January 9, 2006, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 to extend its time to serve an answer or, in the alternative, to compel the acceptance of an untimely answer and, in effect, denied their cross motion for leave to enter judgment upon the defendant’s failure to appear or answer.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an inquest on the issue of damages.

A defendant who has failed to timely appear or answer the complaint must provide a reasonable excuse for the default and demonstrate a meritorious defense to the action, when opposing a motion for leave to enter judgment upon its failure to appear or answer and moving to extend the time to answer or to compel the acceptance of an untimely answer *(see Juseinoski v Board of Educ. of City of*N.Y., 15 AD3d 353, 356 [2005]; *Ennis v Lema,*305 AD2d 632, 633 [2003]). In support of its motion, the defendant failed to present any evidence of a meritorious defense. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to extend its time to serve an *650answer or to compel the acceptance of an untimely answer should have been denied.

The plaintiffs submitted proof of service of the summons and complaint, a factually-detailed verified notice of claim, and an affirmation from their attorney regarding the defendant’s default in appearing and answering *(see*CPLR 3215 [f]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant should have been granted *(see Giovanelli v Rivera,*23 AD3d 616 [2005]; *Landaverde v Wroth,*260 AD2d 448 [1999]). Miller, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5408]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement


Notice on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, 
Interior.

ACTION: List of Restricted Joint Bidders; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and 
Enforcement published a notice in the Federal Register on February 9, 
2011, entitled: ``List of Restricted Joint Bidders'' that contained an 
error. We are correcting the name of an oil company listed under Group 
VIII in that notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel T. Cable, 703-787-1322.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of February 9, 2011, in FR Doc. 2011-2791, 
on page 7230, in the first column, correct the third line in the Group 
VIII section to read:

Statoil USA E&P Inc.

    Dated: March 3, 2011.
Robert P. LaBelle,
Associate Director for Offshore Energy and Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 2011-5408 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
EXHIBIT 21




                      HOMELAND HOLDING CORPORATION

                          LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



                                                           Jurisdiction
Name of Subsidiaries                                    Where Incorporated

Homeland Stores, Inc.                                        Delaware

SLB Marketing, Inc.                                           Texas

JCH Beverage, Inc.                                            Texas
• ' • ''•--^^fNTO F Capita l Regio n SPORX^TiO N 

## communit y foundation v ; ii-ii.LVi: ' Th e Cente r fo r Charitabl e Givin

g I! / l-ff ] 7 / p o - -3 0 Februar y 16,201 2 ' " " '

- -^ ^
Docket Management

Facilit y U.S
. Department

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenu e S E Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mW12-14 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 Ref : Su n Countr y Slo t Exemptio n - Docke t

Number FAA-2012-008 9 Ladie s andGentlemen : Su n Countr y Airline s ha s requeste da n exemptio n fro

mth e slo t limi t fo r Ronal dReaga

n Washingto n Nationa l Airpor t (DCA ) set

fort h in § 93.123(a) , t o permi t th e FA A t o creat e ai r

carrier slot s durin g certai n limite dhour s fo

r Sun Country' s use . Th e propose dai r carrie r slot s woul dreplac e tw o slo t exemption s under

DO T Order

2010-12-1 6 awarde dt o Sun Country
. O n Januar y 6 , 2012 , th e Unite d State s Cour

t o f Appeal s fo

r th e Distric t

o f Columbi aCircui t

vacate dth e DO T Order , andSu n (dountr y wil l los e it s existin g servic e betwee n DCA andLansing' s Capital Regio n International Airport
. Specifically , Sun Countr y desire s on e dail y slo t

durin g eac h o f

th e 1000 an d1100 hours
. Th e propose dexemptio n woul dpermi t Su n Countr

y t o continu e operatin g it s existin g service s and avoi da n inequitabl e resul t

o f th e Court' s order
. Th e Su n Countr y DC A servic e i s o f

grea t benefi t t o th e Lansin g area' s nonprofi t community , a s nonprofit leader s ar

e regularl y require dt o trave l t o Washingto n in connectio n wit h federa l grantmakin g andregulator y activities
. Th e propose dexemptio n wil l ensur e that charitabl e dollar s ar e no t waste dby havin g to us e more expensiv e an dtime-consumin g ai r trave l alternatives
. Th e Su n Countr y DC A servic e i s essential t o th e economi c growt h o f th e Greater

Lansin g Region
. Th e daily servic e i s th e onl y larg e aircraf t (737-800 ) servic e t o Washingto n Reaga n Airport , i

n th e state o f Michiga n outsid e o f

Detroit
. Prio r

t o Su n Country , th e regional communit y hadrequeste d th e introductio n o f

thi s servic e fro

mnumerou s other

airlin e operator s withou t

success . Accordingly , i t i s critica l tha t th e FA A take th e necessar

y step s to ensure th e continuatio n o f th e Su n Countr y slot s a t th e establishe dflight

time s i n suppor t o f Greater Lansing' s busines s an deconomi c growth
. You r immediat e approval o f

thi s exemption , s o tha

t Su n Countr y ca n begi n t o ente r

flight schedule s fo r sal e fo r th e balanc e o f

2012 , wil l b e greatl y appreciated
. Sincerely ,

Denni s W
. Fliehma n , 33 0 Marshal l St
. * Suite.300'Lansing , MI4891 2 Presiden t

an dCE O , ... ; - 517-272-287 0 • www.crcfoundation.or g email : info@crcfoundation.or g Fo rgood
. Fo rever.=" '
# C_2012379EN.01000701.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — Herbert Neuman, Andoni Galdeano del Sel, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA

(Joined Cases C-101/11 P and C-102/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Community design - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 6, 25(1)(b) and (e), and 61 - Registered Community design or model representing a seated figure - Earlier Community figurative mark - Different overall impression - Degree of freedom of the designer - Informed user - Scope of judicial review - No statement of reasons)

2012/C 379/11

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Herbert Neuman, Andoni Galdeano del Sel (represented by: S. Miguez Pereira, abogada), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (represented by J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: José Manuel Baena Grupo (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — Case T-513/09 Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (seated figure), by which the General Court annulled the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 October 2009 (Case R 1323/2008-3)

Baena Grupo

OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (seated figure)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals;

| 2. | Orders Mr Neuman and Mr Galdeano del Sel to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA in relation to the appeal in Case C-101/11 P; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Neuman and Mr Galdeano del Sel to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA in relation to the appeal in Case C-101/11 P;

| 3. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA in relation to the appeal in Case C-102/11 P. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA in relation to the appeal in Case C-102/11 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

1

---
#### § 201.97 Annual reports.

Every packer, live poultry dealer, stockyard owner, market agency, and dealer (except a packer buyer registered to purchase livestock for slaughter only) shall file annually with the Administration a report on prescribed forms not later than April 15 following the calendar year end or, if the records are kept on a fiscal year basis, not later than 90 days after the close of his fiscal year. The Administrator on good cause shown, or on his own motion, may grant a reasonable extension of the filing date or may waive the filing of such reports in particular cases.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0580-0015)

[54 FR 16356, Apr. 24, 1989, as amended at 68 FR 75388, Dec. 31, 2003]
### §2663. EPA citizen's guide

#### (a) Publication

In order to make continuous progress toward the long-term goal established in section 2661 of this title, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall, not later than June 1, 1989, publish and make available to the public an updated version of its document titled "A Citizen's Guide to Radon". The Administrator shall revise and republish the guide as necessary thereafter.

#### (b) Information included

#### (1) Action levels

The updated citizen's guide published as provided in subsection (a) shall include a description of a series of action levels indicating the health risk associated with different levels of radon exposure.

#### (2) Other information

The updated citizen's guide shall also include information with respect to each of the following:

(A) The increased health risk associated with the exposure of potentially sensitive populations to different levels of radon.

(B) The increased health risk associated with the exposure to radon of persons engaged in potentially risk-increasing behavior.

(C) The cost and technological feasibility of reducing radon concentrations within existing and new buildings.

(D) The relationship between short-term and long-term testing techniques and the relationship between (i) measurements based on both such techniques, and (ii) the actions 1 levels set forth as provided in paragraph (1).

(E) Outdoor radon levels around the country.

(Pub. L. 94–469, title III, §303, as added Pub. L. 100–551, §1(a), Oct. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 2755.)

1 So in original. Probably should be "action".
1845 - 0052 - Affected Public - Individuals 11 /26 /201 4

This request is for approval of an extension of OMB information collection number 1845 - 0052 the reporting requirements currently in the Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR 668, Subpart I. This subpart governs the Immigration - Status Confirmation, as authorized by section 484(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1091). The regulations can be reviewed at 34 CFR 668, Subpart I . There is an increase in burden hours due to an increase in the number of respondents who need to present documentation to the school to be included with the G - 845 form to complete the confirmation of eligibility t o receive Title IV assistance. There has not been any change to the regulatory language requiring this activity.

# of Respondents # of Responses X Hours/ = Burden Response Hours Individuals: 87,949 87,949 .08 hours = 7,03 6 (5 minutes)
Exhibit 32


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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SUNBURST ACQUISITIONS V, INC.
(the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2003, (the "Report"), I, Jay
Lutsky, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)	The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the Company's financial position and results of
operations.


July 28, 2005

	/s/ Jay Lutsky
	Chief Executive Officer and
	Chief Financial and
	Accounting Officer
### §28. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, §402(11), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3358

Section, acts Feb. 11, 1903, ch. 544, §1, 32 Stat. 823; June 25, 1910, ch. 428, 36 Stat. 854; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §291, 36 Stat. 1167; Apr. 6, 1942, ch. 210, §1, 56 Stat. 198; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §32(a), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §127, 63 Stat. 107; Dec. 21, 1974, Pub. L. 93–528, §4, 88 Stat. 1708, related to expedition of actions by the United States involving general public importance.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7319** 

EARL THOMAS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. BENJAMIN ULEP, Medical Doctor; BENJAMIN ULEP, Individual , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00245

- CMH

- JFA )

Submitted : February 23, 2012 Decided: February 27, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by u n published per curiam opinion
. Earl B. Thomas, III, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee s . Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Earl Thomas appeals the district court ’ s order s denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint and denying Thomas’ motion to amend his complaint to add new defendants . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Thomas v. Ulep , No. 1:10

- cv - 00245

- CMH

- JFA (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 9 & entered Mar. 10 , 2011; filed Sept. 13 & entered Sept. 14, 2011). Further, we deny Thomas’ motion to compel the production of documents. We dispense wit h 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2011038EN.01001601.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2010 — DTL v OHIM — Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales (Solaria)

(Case T-188/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Solaria - Earlier national figurative mark SOLARTIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 38/29

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: DTL Corporación SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Rueda Pascual and A. Zuazo Araluze)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales SL (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: C. Gutiérrez Martínez, H. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2010 (Case R 767/2009-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales SL and DTL Corporación SL.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders DTL Corporación SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DTL Corporación SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

---
**Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 — Telefónica v Commission**

**(Case T‐228/10)**

Action for annulment — State aid — Aid schemes allowing for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of aid — Act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision
prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action by an undertaking having benefited from an individual aid granted under that scheme
but not subject to a repayment obligation — Inadmissibility — No infringement of the right to effective legal protection —
(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 23-24, 26, 38)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision
prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Individual concern — Criteria — Person belonging to a closed circle of persons — Capacity
as party to the administrative procedure — No clearly defined position as a negotiator — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth
para., TFEU) (see paras 28-31, 36-37, 40)*

3.                     *Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern
— Assessment at the time the action brought (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 35)*

4.                     *Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Measure containing
implementation measures at national level — Need to show that persons individually affected (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU)
(see paras 42-45)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48). |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The action is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Telefónica, SA is ordered to pay the costs. |
### §747. Subordination of certain customer claims

Except as provided in section 510 of this title, unless all other customer net equity claims have been paid in full, the trustee may not pay in full or pay in part, directly or indirectly, any net equity claim of a customer that was, on the date the transaction giving rise to such claim occurred—

(1) an insider;

(2) a beneficial owner of at least five percent of any class of equity securities of the debtor, other than—

(A) nonconvertible stock having fixed preferential dividend and liquidation rights; or

(B) interests of limited partners in a limited partnership;

(3) a limited partner with a participation of at least five percent in the net assets or net profits of the debtor; or

(4) an entity that, directly or indirectly, through agreement or otherwise, exercised or had the power to exercise control over the management or policies of the debtor.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2613; Pub. L. 97–222, §13, July 27, 1982, 96 Stat. 238.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### senate report no. 95–989

Section 747 subordinates to other customer claims, all claims of a customer who is an insider, a five percent owner of the debtor, or otherwise in control of the debtor.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1982—Pub. L. 97–222 substituted "the transaction giving rise to such claim occurred" for "such claim arose" in provisions preceding par. (1).