alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### International Merchandise Group Americas, Inc., Appellant, v Segerman International, Inc., Respondent.

[717 NYS2d 126]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered July 8, 1999, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted upon a record establishing that plaintiff seller failed to comply with certain terms of the parties’ contract, which included a letter of credit, on which defendant buyer was the applicant and plaintiff the beneficiary, setting forth, *inter alia,*the latest date of shipment and the permissible variance in the quantity of goods shipped. With respect to the former term, defendant submitted a copy of the bill of lading furnished by the shipping company, the authenticity of which plaintiff does not challenge, that shows that the goods were placed on board after the latest shipping date. With respect to the latter term, the letter of credit describes the specific styles ordered, the quantity ordered for each style and the price per dozen for each style, but does not anywhere aggregate the total quantity shipped, suggesting that the different styles ordered were not interchangeable, and that the permissible variance in quantity was with respect to each style ordered, and not, as plaintiff claims, with respect to the total quantity of all styles ordered. Plaintiff’s claim that the terms of the letter of credit were not express conditions precedent to defendant’s payment obligation, and that plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover under the doctrine of substantial performance, is improperly raised for the first time on appeal, plaintiffs only position before the motion court having been that it complied with the letter of credit. The complaint was also properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3126, since plaintiff simply did not address defendant’s contention that plaintiff had failed to comply with the conditional order of dismissal. Whether such dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3126 is on the merits is academic, given that the complaint is otherwise being dismissed on the merits for plaintiffs nonperformance of the contract. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
Fw: Data Request Michael Stewart to: Tricia Crabtree 02/03/2010 04:11 PM Please docket......thanks! Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D. Environmental Protection Specialist Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919) 541-7524 stewart.michael@epa.gov ----- Forwarded by Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/03/2010 04:11 PM -----

From: Edmund Crouch <crouch@CambridgeEnvironmental.com> To: Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Stephen Graham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Cindy Langworthy <clangworthy@hunton.com> Date: 02/03/2010 11:10 AM Subject: Re: Data Request

Michael Thank you for supplying the files to the FTP site. I have downloaded them and they appear to meet my immediate needs. However, missing from those files were the source codes for the modified version of TRIM.Expo/APEX used in the SO2 analysis. The source codes for the regular version of APEX 4.3 are on the EPA TRIM web site, but the version used in the SO2 analysis uses a modified version that estimates 5-min peak concentrations from hourly data (see Final REA at page 186 and 188). The input files include a p eak-to-mean distribution file not described in the regular APEX 4.3 Users Guide or TSD, apparently specified by adding an additional keyword 5MINPEAK to the control file. I therefore request that the source codes for the modified Version 4.3 (dated May 2, 2008 according to the output files) of the APEX model used in the SO2 modeling be placed in the docket so that they are on public record.

Stewart

. Michael @ epamail

. epa . gov wrote: Dr Crouch: This is a follow-up to the email I sent this morning. We believe that we have compiled the data that you requested. If you can provide an FTP site, we can start uploading the data files this afternoon. Please let me know if this is convenient for you. Thanks,Michael Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D. Environmental Protection Specialist Health and Environmental Impacts Division US. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919) 541-7524 stewart
. michael @ epa . gov

-- Edmund A.C. Crouch, Ph.D. Senior Scientist Cambridge Environmental Inc 58 Charles Street Cambridge, MA 02141 Office: 617-225-0810 Fax: 617-225-0813 http ://www . CambridgeEnvironmental

. com
### §16928. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 16928 was editorially reclassified as section 20930 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**WRITTENSTATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. GILLILAND**

 

Onthis day, Sabre Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the periodending September  30, 2004 (the “Report”).

 

This written statement accompanied the Report. 

 

I,Michael S. Gilliland, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertify that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ MICHAEL S. GILLILAND              |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael S. Gilliland                  |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| November 5, 2004                 |

 

----
### §2756b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 2756b, originally enacted as section 448 of Pub. L. 89–329, was transferred to section 1087–58 of Title 20, Education.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 13, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 13, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0232. ALAN HAMPTON v. JANICE TRAWICK et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

CV20120309
#### Juan De Dios RODRIGUEZ-DURAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70724.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 7, 2007 *.

Filed March 14, 2007.

David B. Landry, Esq., Law Office of David B. Landry, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Coun*460sel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: RYMER, WARDLAW, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Juan De Dios Rodriguez-Duran petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance without opinion of the Immigration Judge’s denial of his request for cancellation of removal due to his 1992 aggravated felony conviction under California Penal Code section 288(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and we deny the petition.

The doctrine of res judicata does not preclude the IJ from considering Rodriguez’s 1992 conviction for violating California Penal Code section 288(a). Rodriguez contends that the government unsuccessfully attempted to remove him in 1992 based on the same conviction and the termination of those proceedings in his favor is a final judgment barring relitigation of the conviction now. Rodriguez mischaracterizes the 1992 proceedings. There, the Order to Show Cause (OSC) charged him with deportability under former INA § 241(a)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(B), as an alien who entered the United States without inspection. Although the OSC recited the 1992 conviction, it was not charged as a basis for deportation, as prior counsel recognized in Rodriguez’s unopposed Motion to Terminate proceedings, which was granted. Here, Rodriguez was charged with remov-ability under INA § 212(a)(6)(E)®, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)®, for attempting to smuggle two undocumented aliens, a charge Rodriguez conceded, but from which he sought relief under INA § 240A(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). Because the claims in the two proceedings are different, the government is not barred from asserting the 1992 conviction as a predicate aggravated felony here. *See Montana v. United States,*440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979).

Rodriguez alternatively asserts that the principle of collateral estoppel precludes the IJ from considering his 1992 conviction. We lack jurisdiction to consider this argument because Rodriguez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by first presenting it to the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

Petition DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### *The*People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James McMillan, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered November 15, 1976, convicting him of rape in the first degree and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing consecutive sentences. Judgment affirmed. At the trial, the victim of these crimes, a 72-year-old woman, testified that the defendant forced his way into her room at the Hotel Newburgh and brutally beat and raped her. As a result of this incident, she lost five teeth and received four sutures in the back of her head. The only issue on this appeal warranting discussion is the propriety of imposing consecutive sentences. The defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 12 Vi to 25 years for the rape conviction and 7 Vi to 15 years for the burglary conviction. Subdivision 2 of section 70.25 of the Penal Law provides: "When more than one sentence of imprisonment is imposed on a person for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material .element of the other, the sentences must run concurrently.” To determine the applicability of this statute to a particular case, an examination of the record in the case is necessary *(People v Di Lapo,*14 NY2d 170). The defendant in this case, according to the testimony, knocked on his victim’s door and, when she opened it, "plunged” into the room, grabbed her by the throat and threw her to the floor. Defendant banged her against the floor and said "have a heart attack whitey, die whitey”. He then proceeded to rape her. There came a time when the defendant realized that the window shades were Up. He dragged her by the hair to the windows and pulled the shades down. The defendant then threw her onto the bed and raped her again. We hold that the Penal Law does not prevent the imposition of consecutive sentences under the facts of this case. It is certainly not impossible to say that there were separate acts making out separate crimes (see *People v Di Lapo, supra; People v Baker,*27 AD2d 269). The physical injury necessary for burglary in the second degree was inflicted at the point when the defendant grabbed his victim by the throat, threw her to the floor and banged her against the floor. The rape occurred subsequent thereto and was a separate act. The mere fact that there was a continuous course of activity here is insufficient to require concurrent sentences (see *People ex rel. Tolbert v Murphy, 25*Misc 2d 647, affd 14 AD2d 484). Considering the fact that the victim here was 72 years old, it is clear that the defendant utilized far more force than was necessary to subdue her and it cannot be said that the injury inflicted was incidental to the rape and not separate and apart from it. Martuscello, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
Letter from Wachovia to Robert P. Kelly, dated January 31, 2006



 Exhibit(10)(C) 
  
 [Wachovia Letterhead] 
  
 January 31, 2006 
  
 Robert P. Kelly 
 [address] 
  
 Dear Bob, 
  
 This is to confirm that your accepting the position as Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Mellon Financial Corporation and fulfilling the duties of that office will not constitute a violation of
Section 7(b)(ii) of the Employment Agreement between you and Wachovia Corporation dated as of November 1, 2001. All of your other obligations under the Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 
  
 This will also confirm that I will recommend to Wachovia’s Management
Resources & Compensation Committee that you receive an annual cash incentive award for 2005 equal to your target award of $2,000,000. If approved, you would receive this bonus when bonuses are paid to other senior executives. 
  
 I wish you all the best for the future. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  
 WACHOVIA CORPORATION 
  
  
  
 G. Kennedy Thompson 
 Chairman, President & CEO
3409.507-2 Contract clause.

The contracting officer must insert the clause at 3452.209–71 (Conflict of interest) in all contracts

for services above the simplified acquisition threshold.

Parent topic: Subpart 3409.5—Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest
§ 1423.26 Transmittal of the Administrative Law Judge's decision to the Board; exceptions. ( a ) After the close of the hearing, and the receipt of brief, if any, the Administrative Law Judge shall prepare the decision expeditiously. The Administrative Law Judge shall prepare a decision even when the parties enter into a stipulation of fact at the hearing. The decision shall contain findings of fact, conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefor including credibility determinations, and conclusions as to the disposition of the case including, where appropriate, the remedial action to be taken and notices to be posted.
( b ) The Administrative Law Judge shall cause the decision to be served promptly on all parties to the proceeding. Thereafter, the Administrative Law Judge shall transmit the case to the Board including the judge's decision and the record. The record shall include the charge, complaint, service sheet, answer, motions, rulings, orders, official transcript of the hearing, stipulations, objections, depositions, interrogatories, exhibits, documentary evidence and any briefs or other documents submitted by the parties.
( c ) An original and three (3) copies of any exception to the Administrative Law Judge's decision and briefs in support of exceptions may be filed by any party with the Board within twenty-five (25) days after service of the decision: *Provided, however,* That the Board may for good cause shown extend the time for filing such exceptions. Requests for additional time in which to file exceptions shall be in writing, and copies thereof shall be served on the other parties. Requests for extension of time must be received no later than five (5) days before the date the exceptions are due. Copies of such exceptions and any supporting briefs shall be served on all other parties, and a statement of such service shall be furnished to the Board.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7771** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
KUNTA KENTA REDD , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. ( 7:08

- cr - 00043

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Kunta Kenta Redd , Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James , Scott Andrew Lemmon , Timothy Severo , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are n ot binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Kunta Kenta Redd appeals the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of

sentence , denying his motions for leave to appeal and for privacy protection, and granting the Government’s motion to
seal. Redd confines his relevant arguments on appeal to the
district court’s denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief. We have
reviewed the record and find n o reversible error in this ruling

. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Redd , No. 7:08

- cr - 00043

- D

- 1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 14, 2016)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade quately presented in the
materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Mooney Aerospace Group, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to their knowledge:

(1)   The report fully complies with the requirements 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 financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


Date: November 21, 2005            By: /s/ Gretchen L. Jahn
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                           Gretchen L. Jahn
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       16
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Thompson, Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, convicting him of violation of section 1897 of the Penal Law, and from the sentence imposed. Judgment unanimously affirmed. No opinion. No separate appeal lies from the sentence, which has been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ.
### SERVED: April 12, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

In The Matter Of: PAZ AVIA TION, INC. Respondent 

### WASHINGTON, DC ) ) 

### ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2014-0807 Case No. 20118090272

ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING OnJanuary 12, 2016, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. Among otherthings, this Order set a Telephone Motion Conference for December 14, 2016, and setthe Hearing for March 14-16, 2017. On April 11, 2016, the FAA's Withdrawal ofComplaint was filed, stating "inview ofa settlementreached betweenthe FAA and the Respondent, the FAA hereby withdraws its Complaint." After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. TheTelephone Motion Conference set for December 14, 2016, is cancelled. 2. The Hearing set for March 14

- 16, 2017, is cancelled. 3. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this proceeding is dismissed withprejudice.

Attachment: Service List 

### tJbDocketNo. FAA-2014-0807 (Civil Penalty Action) 

### SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY Mr. Brandon C. Goldberg 

### Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division, Southern Team P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Mr. DavidM. McDonald**Respondent~Counsel** McDonald & McDonald Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 669122 Miami, FL 33166-9428 TEL: 305-643-5313 FAX: 305-643-4990 Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (El 1-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 Paz Aviation Inc., 

### Respondent c/o Jay Allen, President 7455 W 2nd Court Hialeah, FL 33014-4301

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orbyexpedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 32.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JEFFERY M. JACKSON

On this day, Sabre Holdings Corporation (the "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the period ending September 30, 2006 (the "Report").

This
written statement accompanied the Report.

I,
Jeffery M. Jackson, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that:



|/s/JEFFERY M. JACKSONJeffery M. Jackson
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
November 3, 2006 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### § 270.8b-10 Requirements as to proper form.

Every registration statement or report shall be prepared in accordance with the form prescribed therefor by the Commission, as in effect on the date of filing. Any such statement or report shall be deemed to be filed on the proper form unless objection to the form is made by the Commission within thirty days after the date of filing.

[18 FR 8576, Dec. 19, 1953]