alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Salim Sheikh, Appellant, v Amina Basheer, Defendant. David Scott, Nonparty Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 570]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J), dated September 28, 2004, as directed that the escrowee of an account established pursuant to the divorce proceeding remit the sum of $50,000 to the defendant’s counsel as and for an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and determination on the issue of a reasonable attorney’s fee due to the defendant’s counsel.

The Supreme Court erred in awarding the defendant an attorney’s fee without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. Under the circumstances of this case, an evidentiary hearing was necessary to explore in a meaningful way the value and time of the claimed services of counsel *(see Rienzi v Rienzi,*23 AD3d 447 [2005]; *Nee v Nee,*240 AD2d 478, 479-480 [1997]; *Maroney v Maroney,*208 AD2d 915, 916 [1994]; *Petritis v Petritis,*131 AD2d 651, 653 [1987]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and determination on this issue.

Motion by the nonparty respondent on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 28, 2004, to strike pages 2 through 7 and 12 through 120 of the record on appeal. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 28, 2006, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for a determination upon the argument or submission of the appeal.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon submission of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the motion is denied. Adams, J.E, Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
您可能在旅行中暴露于 COVID-19。

注意您的健康以发现症状。即使没有症状,您也可以将病毒传播给他人。

保护他人免于生病:

详细信息请参见:www.cdc.gov/COVIDtravel CS 315649-AW July 31, 2020 4:57 PM

全球健康警报:COVID-19 

与他人保持 6 英尺/2 米的距离。 佩戴口罩。

密切接触活动会使您有暴露于 COVID-19 的风险。

如果您认为自己在外出旅行中可能已经暴露,请在旅行后的 14 天内格外注意:

ű 尽量待在家里。

ű 避免待在人的周围,特别是那些会因 COVID-19 而患严重疾病的高风险人群。

ű 考虑进行 COVID-19 检测。

勤洗手。
www.cdc.gov/COVIDtravel 

For information about COVID-19 and how to monitor your health after travel, 

open your cell phone camera and scan this code: 

Для получения информации о COVID-19 и о том, как 

контролировать состояние вашего здоровья после 

путешествия, включите камеру на вашем мобильном 

телефоне и отсканируйте этот код:

Pour obtenir des informations relatives à COVID-19 et à la manière de surveiller 

votre santé après un voyage, ouvrez la caméra de votre téléphone portable et 

scannez le code suivant :

코로나바이러스감염증-19(COVID-19) 및 여행 후 건강 상태를 모니터

링하는 방법에 대한 정보를 보려면, 휴대폰 카메라로 이 코드를 스캔

하십시오:

COVID-19 ,

, :

新型コロナウイルス感染症(COVID-19)

に関する情報、および旅行後の自身の健

康状態を観察する方法については、携帯

電話のカメラを起動して、このコードを

スキャンしてください:

Untuk mendapatkan maklumat mengenai COVID-19 dan cara 

mengawasi kesihatan anda selepas perjalanan, buka kamera telefon bimbit anda 

dan imbas kod ini:

Para obter informações sobre o COVID-19 e como monitorar 

sua saúde após a viagem, abra a câmera do seu celular e 

digitalize este código:

Para obtener información sobre el COVID-19 y cómo monitorear su salud 

después de un viaje, abra la cámara de su teléfono y escanee este código: 

有关COVID-19 的信息以及如何在旅行后监

测您的健康状况,请打开手机摄像头并扫描

此二维码:

Per informazioni sulla COVID-19 e su come monitorare 

la Sua salute dopo il viaggio, apra la fotocamera del Suo 

cellulare e scansioni questo codice:
# C_2021349EN.01000301.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Ryanair DAC

(Case C-453/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid for airports and airlines - Decision classifying the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport - Inadmissibility of an action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Natural or legal person not directly and individually concerned by the decision at issue - Effective judicial protection)

(2021/C 349/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Land Rheinland-Pfalz (represented by: Professor C. Koenig), Ryanair DAC (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, D. Vasbeck, avocat, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Deutsche Lufthansa AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz and Ryanair DAC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutsche Lufthansa AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz and Ryanair DAC.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---
#### § 1.33 Conflicts of interest.

No official or employee of a State or any other governmental instrumentality who is authorized in his official capacity to negotiate, make, accept or approve, or to take part in negotiating, making, accepting or approving any contract or subcontract in connection with a project shall have, directly or indirectly, any financial or other personal interest in any such contract or subcontract. No engineer, attorney, appraiser, inspector or other person performing services for a State or a governmental instrumentality in connection with a project shall have, directly or indirectly, a financial or other personal interest, other than his employment or retention by a State or other governmental instrumentality, in any contract or subcontract in connection with such project. No officer or employee of such person retained by a State or other governmental instrumentality shall have, directly or indirectly, any financial or other personal interest in any real property acquired for a project unless such interest is openly disclosed upon the public records of the State highway department and of such other governmental instrumentality, and such officer, employee or person has not participated in such acquisition for and in behalf of the State. It shall be the responsibility of the State to enforce the requirements of this section.
MEMORANDUM

TO:    Docket ID: EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0009

FROM:    Anita Lee, EPA Region 9

DATE:    October 14, 2014

SUBJECT: Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Navajo Nation; Regional Haze Requirements for

Navajo Generating Station; Re‐Posting of Attachment Missing From EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0009‐

0151

EPA posted document number EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0009‐0151, titled “Letter from The Hopi Tribe, dated

September 9, 2013, to Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, NGS and Proposed SRP‐Alternative to BART,” to

www.regulations.gov on September 13, 2013. EPA intended to post the letter as an attachment to the

document number.

The Hopi Tribe provided this letter to EPA and EPA posted it to our rulemaking docket prior to the January 6,

2014 close of the comment period.  

The final rule was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2014.

On October 9, 2014, EPA was informed that no letter was included as an attachment to document number 0151.  

EPA is re‐posting the missing attachment under a new document ID number within EPA‐R09‐OAR‐2013‐0009.
### §482h. Coronado National Forest; mining rights

On and after March 15, 1940, mining locations made under the mining laws of the United States upon lands within four hundred feet of the center line of the Catalina Highway, Coronado National Forest, Arizona, which highway begins at the south boundary of said national forest near the southeast corner of section 7, township 13 south, range 16 east, Gila and Salt River base and meridian, and runs in a general northerly direction for a distance of about twenty-five miles to Soldier Camp, shall confer on the locator no right to the surface of the land described in his location other than the right to occupy and use, under the rules and regulations relating to the administration of the Coronado National Forest, so much thereof as may be reasonably necessary to carry on prospecting and mining, and shall not authorize the taking of any resource other than the mineral deposits, or the occupancy of said land for any purpose other than prospecting and mining; and each patent issued thereafter under the United States mining laws upon a mineral location made upon lands within four hundred feet of said center line shall convey title only to the mineral deposits within said land and the right, subject to rules and regulations relating to the national forests, to occupy and use the surface of the land for prospecting and mining only: Provided, That valid mining claims within said lands existing on March 15, 1940, and thereafter maintained in compliance with the laws under which they were initiated and the laws of the State of Arizona may be perfected in accordance with the laws under which they were initiated.

(Mar. 15, 1940, ch. 59, 54 Stat. 52.)
#### John F. Finerty v. David Siegel, as President of Hotel & Restaurant Workers Union No. 16.

Present — Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
No. 98-10311 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10311 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LORETA DE-ANN COFFMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:92-CR-238-6-T

- - - - - - - - - - December 23, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Loreta De-Ann Coffman a rgues that the district court’s

imposition of consecutive sentences for h er convictions for

possession with intent to d istribute cocaine and crack cocaine

(count 2) and for the distribution of cocaine and crack cocaine and

manufacturing crack cocaine within 1000 feet of a school (count 26)

violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution.

We have reviewed the record and have de termined that the

dis trict court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences for

counts 2 and 26 because each count involved separate drug offensesNo. 98-10311 -2-

which occurred at two different locations. The indictment did not

result in the imposition of multiplicious sentences and, thus, did

not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. U nited

States v. Cluck , 143 F.3d 174, 178-79 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
§ 65.82 Procedure for requesting a Presidential determination of an immigration emergency. ( a ) The President may make a determination concerning the existence of an immigration emergency after review of a request from either the Attorney General of the United States or the chief executive of a State or local government. Such a request shall include a description of the facts believed to constitute an immigration emergency and the types of assistance needed to meet that emergency. Except when a request is made by the Attorney General, the requestor shall file the original application with the Office of the President and shall file copies of the application with the Attorney General and with the Commissioner of INS.
( b ) If the President determines that an immigration emergency exists, the President shall certify that fact to the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and of the Senate.
Six Steps for Properly Cleaning and Disinfecting Your School 

Protect Your School Against COVID-19

Properly cleaning and disinfecting surfaces and objects can help safely and effectively 

reduce the spread of disease in your school or facility. Routinely clean and disinfect 

frequently touched surfaces.

✓ Always wear gloves and other personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriate 

for the chemicals being used. The PPE may include eye protection

✓ Cleaning and disinfection products should not be used by or near students.

✓ Make sure that there is adequate ventilation (air flow) when using chemical 

products to prevent yourself or others from inhaling toxic vapors.

CS 319611-C 11/05/2020

cdc.gov/coronavirus

Step 1: 

Visit epa.gov/listn

or scan the QR code 

with your smart 

phone to see EPA’s 

list of approved 

disinfectants.

Step 3: 

Clean surfaces 

and determine 

how areas will 

be disinfected.

Step 5: 

After cleaning 

and disinfection, 

wash your hands 

with soap and 

water for at least 

20 seconds.

Step 2: 

Follow the 

directions 

on the label 

carefully. 

Step 4: 

Follow the 

contact time 

shown on 

the label.

Step 6: 

Store chemicals 

in a secure 

location away 

from students’ 

reach and sight.
### §440a. Change in name of Fort McHenry Park

The Fort McHenry National Park, in the State of Maryland, authorized by sections 437 to 440 of this title, shall hereafter be called and known as the "Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine", and all moneys heretofore or hereafter appropriated for this area under previous designations may be used in this area as redesignated.

(Aug. 11, 1939, ch. 686, 53 Stat. 1405.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section consists of a part of act Aug. 11, 1939. The remainder, relating to changing the name of "Abraham Lincoln National Park" to "Abraham Lincoln National Historical Park" (now "Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park") is set out as section 217 of this title.
#### Agostino Gnecco, Appellant, v. Incorporated Village of Great Neck Plaza et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Hagarty, Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
### §460l–20. Construction of projects under certain laws with allocations to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement exceeding allocations to other functions unauthorized; exception

Nothing contained in this part shall be taken to authorize or to sanction the construction under the Federal reclamation laws or under any Rivers and Harbors or Flood Control Act of any project in which the sum of the allocations to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement exceeds the sum of the allocations to irrigation, hydroelectric power, municipal, domestic and industrial water supply, navigation, and flood control, except that this section shall not apply to any such project for the enhancement of anadromous fisheries, shrimp, or for the conservation of migratory birds protected by treaty, when each of the other functions of such a project has, of itself, a favorable benefit-cost ratio.

(Pub. L. 89–72, §9, July 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 217.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This part, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 89–72, which enacted sections 460l–12 to 460l–21 of this title and amended former section 460l–5(a) and section 662(d) of this title.

Rivers and Harbors or Flood Control Act, referred to in text, is classified principally to Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters.
Linda S. Adams 

Secretary for 

Environmental Protection

 

The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. 

For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our website: http://www.arb.ca.gov. 

California Environmental Protection Agency

Printed on Recycled Paper

Air Resources Board Mary D. Nichols, Chairman 

1001 I Street • P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, California 95812 • www.arb.ca.gov Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor 

May 19, 2009 

Ms. Deborah Jordan, Director 

Air Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Dear Ms. Jordan: 

I am writing to request that the September 2, 2006, April 12, 2007, and June 5, 2007, 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control District PM10 exceedances at various monitoring 

sites in Imperial County be flagged as natural events due to windblown dust. 

Documentation on these windblown dust events and their impact on air quality is 

enclosed. 

On March 22, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) adopted the 

‘Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events’ rule that allows data to be flagged 

and thus excluded from consideration by U.S. EPA when making decisions related to 

the attainment status of an area. This rule, which became effective on May 22, 2007, 

requires that States submit documentation to support flagging to the appropriate 

U.S. EPA Regional Office. 

We are therefore formally requesting that you concur that these exceedances were 

PM10 natural events and send confirmation to us by letter. If you have any questions 

regarding the enclosed documentation, please contact Ms. Karen Magliano, Chief, Air 

Quality Data Branch, at (916) 322-7137 or via email at kmaglian@arb.ca.gov. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Lynn Terry for 

James N. Goldstene 

Executive Officer 

Enclosure 
Ms. Deborah Jordan, Director 

May 19, 2009 

Page 2 

 

cc: Mr. Brad Poiriez 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control District 

 150 South Ninth Street 

 El Centro, California 92243-2850 

Ms. Karen Magliano 

Chief, Air Quality Data Branch 

 Planning and Technical Support Division
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1307

JACK SUPINGER

,

Petitioner

- Appellant

,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

,

Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 10957

- 20)

Submitted : November 17, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jack Supinger, Appellant Pro Se. Bethan y B. Hauser, Joan Iris Oppenheimer, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1307 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURI A M:

Jack Supinger appeals from the tax court’s order finding a deficiency in his 2017

income taxes and assessing an underpayment penalty and a penalty for presenting and

persisting in the frivolous argument that his wages were not subject to income tax. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af firm for the

reasons stated by the tax court. Supinger v. Comm’r of Internal Rev. , Tax Ct. No. 10957

-

20 (U.S. Tax Ct. Dec. 14, 2021). 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.

AFFIRM ED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1307 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 93-9345
ROBIN JOY SHAHAR, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus MICHAEL J. BOWERS, Individually and in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Georgia, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

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

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion December 20, 1995, 11th Cir., 1995, F.2d ) (March 8, 1996) Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.*
B Y T H E C O U R T : A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court2 en banc. The previous panel's opinion is hereby VACATED.

___________________________ *Senior U.S. Circuit Judge John C. Godbold has elected to participate in further proceedings in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c).
#### Abraham Berkowitz, Appellant-Respondent, v Fischbein, Badillo, Wagner & Harding, Defendant, and Rick, Steiner, Segal & Fell, P.C., et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[825 NYS2d 17]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered July 12, 2005, which granted the motion by defendants Segal and the Rick, Steiner firm for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action against them for legad malpractice, but denied dismissal of the remaining cladm for breach of contract, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion granted to dismiss the breach of contract claim as well, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-respondents-appellants dismissing the complaint as against them.

Elaintiff failed to show that “but for” his attorneys’ omission, he would not have been prosecuted by the Attorney General’s office. This failure to establish proximate cause mandates dismissal of a legal malpractice action, regardless of an attorney’s negligence *(see Brooks v Lewin,*21 AD3d 731, 734 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 713 [2006]).

As plaintiff concedes, his claim for breach of contract should have been dismissed as superfluous, as was an earlier dismissed cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty *(see Turk v Angel,*293 AD2d 284 [2002], *lv denied*100 NY2d 510 [2003]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Sullivan, Catterson and Malone, JJ. [See 9 Misc 3d 1104(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 51398(D) (2005).]
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

In re: )

 )

JOHN R. LAMPL, ) Case #15-12275-RGM

 ) (Chapter 7)

Debtor. )

_______________________________________)

CERTIFICATION OF NO NEW UNPAID DEBTS

John R. Lampl, the Debtor in the above-captioned case, by counsel, hereby certifies that

he has incurred no unpaid debts since the commencement of this case.

JOHN R. LAMPL

By counsel

 /s/Steven B. Ramsdell 

Steven B. Ramsdell, VA Bar #33222

Tyler, Bartl, Ramsdell & Counts, P.L.C.

300 N. Washington St., Suite 202

Alexandria, VA 22314

(703) 549-5003

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Certification was served on this 10 day th

of August, 2016 via the Court’s ECF system on all registered recipients.

 /s/Steven B. Ramsdell 

Steven B. Ramsdell

Case 15-12275-RGM Doc 80 Filed 08/10/16 Entered 08/10/16 14:20:22 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Tonto National Forest
Supervisor's Office -b
UTM Zone 12 NAD83 Legend

Stewart Mountain Quadrangle 0 0.1250.25 05
4 Mar 2010 [FJ Treatment sites