alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. New York State Realty and Terminal Company, Respondent-Appellant, against William E. Boyland et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Appellants-Respondents. [299 Park Ave., Borough of Manhattan.] The People of the State of New York ex rel. New York Central Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant, against William E. Boyland et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Appellants-Respondents. [Park Lane Way, and Other Premises, Borough of Manhattan.]

Orders unanimously modified by fixing the values as follows:



*696As so modified the orders are affirmed. On the record before this court these values are warranted by the evidence. Settle orders on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Breitel and Bergan, JJ.
§ 970.515 Duration of a license. ( a ) Each exploration license will be issued for a period of 10 years.
( b ) If the licensee has substantially complied with the license and its associated exploration plan and requests an extension of the license, the Administrator will extend the license on terms, conditions and restrictions consistent with the Act and this part for a period of not more than 5 years. In determining substantial compliance for purposes of this section, the Administrator may make allowance for deviation from the exploration plan for good cause, such as significantly changed market conditions. However, a request for extension must be accompanied by an amended exploration plan to govern the activities by the licensee during the extended period.
( c ) Successive extensions may be requested, and will be granted by the Administrator, based on the criteria, and for the length of time, specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
JEFFREY HOLLINGSWORTH,

Appellant,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE 

FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS 

CAPITAL 1 INC. TRUST 2006-

WMC2,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-0607

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 20, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Stanley H. Griffis, III, Judge.

Mark Watts, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Michael K. Winston, Dean A. Morande, Donna L. Eng, and Alana Zorrilla-Gaston 

of Carlton, Fields, Jorden, Burt, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 

1.540(b)(1)-(3) on grounds the motion was untimely. See NAFH Nat’l Bank v. 

Aristizabal, 117 So. 3d 900, 901-02 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding motion to vacate 
final judgment pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(2) and (3), on grounds bank committed 

fraud, “was untimely because the appellees filed it ‘more than 1 year’ after the . . . 

final judgment”); Dage v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 95 So. 3d 1021, 1023

(Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding motion to vacate judgment on grounds bank 

misrepresented ownership of note and mortgage at the time of filing suit was 

untimely when “[t]he Dages waited more than two years after the entry of the final 

judgment before moving to vacate the default and judgment”). 

The trial court also properly rejected the contention that relief was available 

pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(5). See Pure H2O Biotechnologies, Inc. v. Mazziotti, 

937 So. 2d 242, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (Rule 1.540(b)(5) “requires the movant 

to establish that significant new evidence or substantial changes in circumstances 

arising after the entry of the judgment make it ‘no longer equitable’ for the trial 

court to enforce its earlier order.” (citation omitted; emphasis omitted)).

Affirmed.

WOLF, BENTON, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.

2
Order entered September 21, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00677
- CV NICOLLE BUSBY, Appellant

V. CITY OF DALLAS AND S AGE POINTE APARTMENT S, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 14901



### O RDER
The docketing statement in this appeal reflects appellant has requested preparation of the reporter’s record

. However, by letter filed July 12, 20 18, court reporter Tenesa Shaw informed the Court no record was taken of the summary judgment hearing that resulted in the order being challenged on appeal. Accordingly, as the clerk’s record has been filed, we ORDER appellant to file her brief no later t han October 22, 2018.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 13, 2015

NO. 03-12-00314-CV

Dr. Saung Zin Park, Appellant

v.

Escalera Ranch Owners' Association, Inc. and Rostrata Builders, Inc., AppelleeS

APPEAL FROM 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND PEMBERTON

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART –

OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on February 9, 2012. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in those portions of the trial court’s judgment granting injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, interest, 

and costs to Escalera Ranch Owners’ Association, and therefore, we affirm those portions of the 

trial court’s judgment and affirm that Park take nothing on his counterclaims against Escalera 

Ranch Owners’ Association. However, we find that there was reversible error in the portion of 

the trial court’s judgment dismissing Park’s claims against Rostrata Builders, Inc. with prejudice,

and therefore, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the 

trial court to allow Park to replead to cure the defects in his complaint against Rostrata Builders, 

Inc. Park shall pay costs incurred by himself and by Escalera Ranch Owners’ Association 
relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below. Rostrata Builders, Inc. shall pay 

costs incurred by itself relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### § 770.1 Introduction.

In this part, references to the EAR are references to 15 CFR chapter VII, subchapter C. This part provides commodity, technology, and software interpretations. These interpretations clarify the scope of controls where such scope is not readily apparent from the Commerce Control List (CCL) (see supplement no. 1 to part 774 of the EAR) and other provisions of the Export Administration Regulations.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF
TREASURER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Tal L. Kapelner, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that:

(i)       
          The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
          March 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)       
          The information in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
          financial condition and results of operations of Tally-Ho Ventures, Inc. (the
          Company).

|Date: May 23, 2005 |  | BY: /S/ TAL L. KAPELNER
TAL L. KAPELNERChief Financial Officer
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
§ 313.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* This part governs the treatment of nonpublic personal information about consumers by the financial institutions listed in paragraph (b) of this section. This part: ( 1 ) Requires a financial institution in specified circumstances to provide notice to customers about its privacy policies and practices;
( 2 ) Describes the conditions under which a financial institution may disclose nonpublic personal information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties; and
( 3 ) Provides a method for consumers to prevent a financial institution from disclosing that information to most nonaffiliated third parties by “opting out” of that disclosure, subject to the exceptions in §§ 313.13, 313.14, and 313.15.
( b ) *Scope.* This part applies only to nonpublic personal information about individuals who obtain financial products or services primarily for personal, family or household purposes from the institutions listed below. This part does not apply to information about companies or about individuals who obtain financial products or services for business, commercial, or agricultural purposes. This part applies to those “financial institutions” over which the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has rulemaking authority pursuant to section 504(a)(1)(C) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. An entity is a “financial institution” if its business is engaging in an activity that is financial in nature or incidental to such financial activities as described in section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, 12 U.S.C. 1843(k), which incorporates activities enumerated by the Federal Reserve Board in 12 CFR 225.28 and 225.86. The “financial institutions” subject to the Commission's rulemaking authority are any persons described in 12 U.S.C. 5519 that are predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both. They are referred to in this part as “You.” Excluded from the coverage of this part are motor vehicle dealers described in 12 U.S.C. 5519(b) that directly extend to consumers retail credit or retail leases involving motor vehicles in which the contract governing such extension of retail credit or retail leases is not routinely assigned to an unaffiliated third party finance or leasing source.
[65 FR 33677, May 24, 2000, as amended at 86 FR 70025, Dec. 9, 2021]
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Charles Miller, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 73-124;

Second District

September 3, 1974.

Ralph Ruebner and Richard Wilson, both of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Elgin, for appellant.

Jack Hoogasian, State’s Attorney, of Waukegan, for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE T. MORAN.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AILEEN MARIANO, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. LIBERTY DIALYSIS-HAWAII, LLC, DBA Liberty Dialysis, Defendant - Appellee. No. 13-15452 D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00652-LEK-BMK
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 8, 2014 ** University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law Honolulu, Hawaii Before: TASHIMA, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Aileen Mariano appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii on claims of sexual harassment, negligent and intentional 

# FILED
OCT 29 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages, all arising under Hawaii law. Mariano has not presented evidence to demonstrate Patient E’s actions were severe or pervasive. See Nelson v. Univ. of Hawaii , 38 P.3d 95, 106 (Hawaii 2001). LDH can be held liable for its employees’ sexual harassment claims only when it was or should have been aware of and failed to take adequate steps to end the harassment. Arquero v. Hilton Hawaiian Village LLC , 91 P.3d 505, 514 (Hawaii 2004). Mariano only reported to L DH Patient E’s multiple touches of her shoulder and arm, which was not severe or pervasive activity. LDH cannot be held liable for this conduct because it responde d promptly and thoroughly to Mariano’s complaint. Mariano’s claim for negligent inflicti on of emotional distress is barred by Hawaii’s workers’ compensation law, H.R.S . § 386-5, because it is not related to the alleged sexual harassment. Because the record indicates LDH’s conduct was not outrageous or beyond the bounds of decency, we affirm summary judgment on Mariano’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Hac v. Univ. of Hawaii , 73 P.3d 46, 60-61 (Hawaii 2003). Claims for punitive damages are derivative of other claims. Ross v. Stouffer Hotel Co. (Hawai’i) Ltd. , 879 P.2d 1037, 1049 (1994). Mariano has not presented 2evidence to avoid summary judgment on any of her other claims. Therefore, her punitive damages claim cannot succeed. AFFIRMED
.

3
Exhibit 10.3


AMENDMENT

TO

COURIER CORPORATION

2005 STOCK EQUITY PLAN

FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


A.            The
Courier Corporation 2005 Stock Equity Plan for Non-employee Directors (the “Plan”),
effective November 3, 2004, is hereby amended pursuant to the authority
reserved in Section 9 thereof:


1.             Section 4 is hereby
amended by deleting the second paragraph thereof and substituting therefor the
following:


“In the event that the
outstanding shares of the Stock of the Company are hereafter increased or
decreased or changed into or exchanged for a different number or kind of
shares, or other securities of the Company or of another corporation, by reason
of reorganization, merger, consolidation, recapitalization, reclassification,
stock split up, combination of shares, or dividends payable in stock, equitable
or proportionate adjustments shall be made in the number and kind of shares
underlying outstanding Options or Stock Units as well as the number of shares
for which future grants may be made.  The
Board of Directors shall also make equitable or proportionate adjustments in
the number of shares underlying outstanding Options to take into account cash
dividends declared and paid by the Company other than in the ordinary
course.  Such adjustments in outstanding
Options shall be made without a change in the aggregate total option price of
Options then outstanding and unexercised, but with a corresponding adjustment
in the option price per share. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no adjustments shall be required if the
Board of Directors determines that such action could cause an Option to fail to
satisfy the conditions of any applicable exception from the requirements of
Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. 
Any such adjustment made by the Board of Directors shall be conclusive
and binding upon all affected persons, including the Company and all
Participants.”


B.            Except
as amended herein, the Plan is confirmed in all other respects.


C.            The
effective date of this Amendment is December 7, 2006.
§ 233.4 Bargain offers based upon the purchase of other merchandise. ( a ) Frequently, advertisers choose to offer bargains in the form of additional merchandise to be given a customer on the condition that he purchase a particular article at the price usually offered by the advertiser. The forms which such offers may take are numerous and varied, yet all have essentially the same purpose and effect. Representative of the language frequently employed in such offers are “Free,” “Buy One—Get One Free,” “2-For-1 Sale,” “Half Price Sale,” “1¢ Sale,” “50% Off,” etc. Literally, of course, the seller is not offering anything “free” (i.e., an unconditional gift), or 1 ⁄ 2 free, or for only 1¢, when he makes such an offer, since the purchaser is required to purchase an article in order to receive the “free” or “1¢” item. It is important, therefore, that where such a form of offer is used, care be taken not to mislead the consumer.
( b ) Where the seller, in making such an offer, increases his regular price of the article required to be bought, or decreases the quantity and quality of that article, or otherwise attaches strings (other than the basic condition that the article be purchased in order for the purchaser to be entitled to the “free” or “1¢” additional merchandise) to the offer, the consumer may be deceived.
( c ) Accordingly, whenever a “free,” “2-for-1,” “half price sale,” “1¢ sale,” “50% off” or similar type of offer is made, all the terms and conditions of the offer should be made clear at the outset. [Guide IV]
Exhibit 32

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Dale G. Rettinger, the Chief Financial Officer of Petroleum Development Corporation, the managing general partner of PDC 2002-B Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"),  hereby certify that: 

- I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

__ /s/ Dale G. Rettinger                  

Name: Dale G. Rettinger

Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: ___August 7, 2003_________
§ 1633.3 General requirements. ( a ) *Summary of test method.* The test method set forth in § 1633.7 measures the flammability (fire test response characteristics) of a mattress specimen by exposing the specimen to a specified flaming ignition source and allowing it to burn freely under well-ventilated, controlled environmental conditions. The flaming ignition source shall be a pair of propane burners. These burners impose differing fluxes for differing times on the top and sides of the specimen. During and after this exposure, measurements shall be made of the time-dependent heat release rate from the specimen, quantifying the energy generated by the fire. The rate of heat release must be measured by means of oxygen consumption calorimetry.
( b ) *Test criteria.* ( 1 ) When testing the mattress set in accordance with the test procedure set forth in § 1633.7, the specimen shall comply with both of the following criteria: ( i ) The peak rate of heat release shall not exceed 200 kilowatts (“kW”) at any time within the 30 minute test; and
( ii ) The total heat release shall not exceed 15 megajoules (“MJ”) for the first 10 minutes of the test.
( 2 ) In the interest of safety, the test operator should discontinue the test and record a failure if a fire develops to such a size as to require suppression for the safety of the facility.
( c ) *Testing of mattress sets.* Mattresses labeled for sale with a foundation shall be tested with such foundation. Mattresses labeled for sale without a foundation shall be tested alone.
( d ) *Compliance with this standard.* Each mattress set manufactured, imported, or renovated on or after the effective date of the standard shall meet the test criteria specified in paragraph (b) of this section and otherwise comply with all applicable requirements of this part 1633.
Process flow diagram for the us e of the new chemical at sites controlled by submitter

Processing of PMN substance with additives to make
#### § 309.21 Recordkeeping.

Manufacturers required to comply this subpart shall establish, maintain, and retain copies of all data, reports, records, and procedures used to meet the requirements of this subpart for three years after the end of the model year to which they relate. They must be available for inspection by Federal Trade Commission staff members, or by people authorized by the Federal Trade Commission.

[60 FR 26955, May 19, 1995. Redesignated at 78 FR 23835, Apr. 23, 2013]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3458 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure the eligibility 

of eligible professionals practicing in rural health clinics for electronic 

health records and quality improvement incentives under Medicare. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2011 

Mr. SCHOCK (for himself, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. HUIZENGA of 

Michigan, Mr. REHBERG, and Mr. WALDEN) 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 title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure 

the eligibility of eligible professionals practicing in rural 

health clinics for electronic health records and quality 

improvement incentives under Medicare. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3458 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE EHR INCENTIVES TO 

2 ELIGIBLE PROFESSIONALS PRACTICING IN 

3 RURAL HEALTH CLINICS. 

4 Section 1848(o)(5)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1395w(o)(5)(A)) is amended by inserting before 

6 the period at the end the following: ‘‘and, with respect to 

7 payment years after 2011, includes rural health clinic 

8 services (as defined in section 1861(aa)(1)) furnished by 

9 an eligible professional’’. 

10 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE ERX AND QUALITY RE11 PORTING INCENTIVES TO RURAL HEALTH 

12 CLINICS. 

13 Section 1848(m)(6)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 

14 U.S.C. 1395w(m)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting before 

15 the period at the end the following: ‘‘except that the term 

16 ‘covered professional services’ shall, with respect to report17 ing periods for 2012 or a subsequent year, include rural 

18 health clinic services (as defined in section 1861(aa)(1)) 

19 furnished by an eligible professional’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS