alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Werner Ek Building Corp., Respondent, v. Melrose Lumber Company, Inc., Appellant.

Order entered on or about November 20, 1962 denying summary judgment for defendant reversed, on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and motion granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff sues on a contract to erect a building on defendant’s lot. Admittedly, the building was not completed and plaintiff admits that it left the job. Its claim is that it was forced off the jo'b. Nothing in the affidavit supports that contention. When a portion of the work had been done the architect supervising the job pointed out certain deviations from the contract and required that they be corrected. Some of these are conceded, but plaintiff claims that correction could be made at a later time. Others plaintiff claims were the result of prior oral directions from defendant. There is no denial that plaintiff refused to make the corrections and abandoned the job. Its claim is that the letter of the architect calling attention to the deviations from the contract forced it off the job. Assuming that plaintiff’s version of the events that took place is correct, no issue is presented. Concur — McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ. Rabin, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to affirm the order denying summary judgment to the defendant. In my opinion there is a triable issue raised relative to the alleged making of the oral agreements between the plaintiff and the defendant — the contracting parties — authorizing and directing deviations from the plans and specifications. I am also of the opinion that the provision in the building contract requiring that the contractor comply with the architect’s instructions as to corrections, may not be construed as meaning that any and all refusals by the contractor to comply in and of themselves constitute a breach of the contract. If indeed it should develop that the plans had been changed by agreement between the contracting parties and that substantial construction had been completed in accordance with such changed plans, then an order by the architect to remove such construction, with a further direction to rebuild following the original plans, could be considered arbitrary. Under such circumstances plaintiff’s refusal to comply might be justifiable. The rule of reason must be applied in construing the provisions relevant to following the direction of the architect.
#### In the Matter of A. Fleisig Sons Folding & Set Up Paper Box Corp., Petitioner, v. Irwin R. Kossoff et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to obtain an injunction, pursuant to section 964 of the Penal Law, petitioner moves for leave to appeal to this court from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, made upon reargument, which: (a) granted respondents’ application in part; (to) deleted certain allegations from the petition; and *683(c) .permitted petitioner to serve an amended petition. Such leave to appeal was previously denied by the Justice who made the order. Under the statute (CPLR 5701) such leave to appeal may be granted only by an individual Justice of this court. Accordingly, this motion was referred to the Hon. Arthur D. Brennan, an Associate Justice of this court. The motion for leave to appeal is denied by Mr. Justice Brennan.
# C_2016405EN.01000201.xml

| 4.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 405/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 405/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 November 2016

(2016/C 405/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1095 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 114,62 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4395 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90063 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8910 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0787 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0735 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,022 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,06 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3255 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5028 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,4580 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4479 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4840 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6040 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5232 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5360 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 268,46 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,8423 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4983 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5130 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 480,74 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6366 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,639 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,3983 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,783 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5967 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,4950 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,9710 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1095

JPY

Japanese yen

114,62

DKK

Danish krone

7,4395

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90063

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8910

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0787

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0735

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,022

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,06

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3255

RON

Romanian leu

4,5028

TRY

Turkish lira

3,4580

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4479

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4840

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6040

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5232

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5360

KRW

South Korean won

1 268,46

ZAR

South African rand

14,8423

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4983

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5130

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 480,74

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6366

PHP

Philippine peso

53,639

RUB

Russian rouble

70,3983

THB

Thai baht

38,783

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5967

MXN

Mexican peso

21,4950

INR

Indian rupee

73,9710

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
(May 17, 1962)

#### Michigan Mutual Liability Company, Appellant, v. Miles W. Emery, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Harry J. Emery, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Supreme Court dismissing the complaint on the merits, in an action for a declaratory judgment under an automobile liability insurance policy. The order determined certain fact questions and that Harry J. Emery was an insured person under the policy.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Antonio PINA-MARTINEZ, also known as Juan Jose Duarte-Nino, Defendant-Appellant. *379United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Jose Martinez-Zavala, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 06-50856, 06-50862

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 11, 2008.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In two consolidated appeals, Juan Antonio Pina-Martinez (Pina) challenges his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation and the revocation of a previously imposed term of supervised release. The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pina on appeal previously moved for leave to withdraw pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s motion was denied and the parties were ordered to brief the issues of whether this court could consider Pina’s appeals despite his apparently untimely notices of appeal and whether this court should require withdrawing counsel to certify that the Government would assert the untimeliness of a notice of appeal.

We pretermit the issue of the timeliness of Pina’s notices of appeal because there is no jurisdictional impediment to reaching the merits of the case and his appeal fails on the merits. *See United States v. Martinez,*496 F.3d 387, 389 (5th Cir.2007) *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 728, 169 L.Ed.2d 568 (2007). In light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Pina challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. This issue is foreclosed. *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *petition for cert. filed*(Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
2901.101 Purpose. ( a ) This chapter contains the DOLAR. The DOLAR is established within the FAR System, at title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
( b ) The purpose of the DOLAR is to implement and supplement the FAR in accordance with FAR subpart 1.3 and authorities cited therein. The DOLAR is not by itself a complete document, as it must be used in conjunction with the FAR.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

117 

KA 14-00840 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LEEVESTER L. PAYTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (WILLIAM G. PIXLEY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J.

Piampiano, J.), rendered April 10, 2014. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law 

§ 120.05 [2]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, viewing the

evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury

(see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the

verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally

People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). “Any inconsistencies in the

victim’s testimony were highlighted by defense counsel, and the jury’s

resolution of credibility issues with respect to the testimony of the

victim is entitled to great deference” (People v DiTucci, 81 AD3d

1249, 1250, lv denied 17 NY3d 794). Defendant further contends that

County Court abused its discretion in admitting in evidence a crime

scene video depicting the victim after the shooting because, although

it concededly was relevant, it was highly prejudicial. We reject that

contention (see People v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833, 835; People v Pobliner,

32 NY2d 356, 369-370, rearg denied 33 NY2d 657, cert denied 416 US

905; People v Garcia, 143 AD3d 1283, 1283-1284). 

Entered: February 3, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
2817.204 Contracts. Deviation requests to exceed the 5-year limitations specified in FAR 17.204(e) require advance approval from— ( a ) The HCA or designee for individual contracts; and
( b ) The SPE for classes of contracts.
# C_2017124EN.01000101.xml

| 21.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 124/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8428 — CVC/Żabka Polska)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 124/01)

On 7 April 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8428. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8428. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Income Properties, Ltd. II 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000711642
<NAME> ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES LTD. II
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,855
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      199
<ALLOWANCES>                                        80
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          35,109
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,044
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,858
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         18,375
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,374)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,858
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,868
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,943
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,537
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (0)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (270)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (97)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (173)
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32(a)  PHARMOS CORPORATION SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS  In connection with the annual report of PHARMOS CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, HAIM AVIV, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.  This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Date: March 21, 2006  By:/s/  Haim Aviv     In connection with the annual report of PHARMOS CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, JAMES A. MEER, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: March 21, 2006




By:/s/  James A. Meer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Pharmos Corporation and will be retained by Pharmos Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
07/30/201 0 08:2 9 2022G7507 5

~ ^^b7507 5 OFFIC E O F RULEMAKING p^S ^ g ^



## Grapevin e Trainin g Cente r July 29 , 201 0 Docke t Management . Facilit

y U S Department

o f rransportatio n 1200 New Jerse y Avenue . S E Wes t Buildin g Oroun dFloor Washington , D C 2059 0 RE : Petitio n fo r

exemptio n t o 1 4 CF RPxir l 61.58(cXI > Docket : FAA-2010-042 3 Dea r Sir/Madame . I n accordanc e wit

h 1 4 CF RPar t 11 , Genera

l Rulemakin g Procedures , PrestoSIM , Inc. , certificate numbe r X1GX058K , woul dlik

e to redisr w th e reques t

fo r a n Exemptio n fro

m1 4 CF RPar t 61.5g(eXl ) o f

th e Federa

l Aviatio n Regulations . Aeeordin g t o our record s thi s reques t

i s docke t numbe r FAA-2010-0423 - Till s reques t

i s bein g made (ifle

r receivin g verba

l confirmation , t o b e Followe dby alatter , fro

m ou r TCP M toda y thi U th e F A A positio n i

n no w tha t Pilo t Proficienc y Check s under 1 4 CF RPar t 61.5 8 ma y b e complete dentirel y i

n aL^ve l A simulato r

provide dth e applican t

ba $ complele dth e thre e lak e off s an dlanding s i

n th e typ e o f

aircrafl : withi n th e proceedin g 9 0 days . Respectfully submitted , Ra y Hoyd e Vic e Presiden t PrcstoSlM , Inc . 100 0 Nolc n Drive , Suite 40 0 Grapevine . T

X 76051-562 2 E-mail ; i'hevde(S'.pre<!to.c;uTt.coiT i I-817-48MH7 0 Sen t vi aFA X t o 1 -202-267^507 5
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: LIBERTY REFUND ANTICIPATION

LOAN LITIGATION MDL No. 2334

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO−2)

On April 16, 2012, the Panel transferred 3 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1407. See _F.Supp.2d_ (J.P.M.L. 2012). Since that time, 4 additional action(s) have been

transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. With the consent of that court, all such actions have

been assigned to the Honorable Joan B Gottschall.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and assigned to

Judge Gottschall.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the

Northern District of Illinois for the reasons stated in the order of April 16, 2012, and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joan B Gottschall.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be

stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the

Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

 Jeffery N. Lüthi

Clerk of the Panel

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 7 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:18
IN RE: LIBERTY REFUND ANTICIPATION

LOAN LITIGATION MDL No. 2334

SCHEDULE CTO−2 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

NEW YORK SOUTHERN

NYS 1 12−03640 Topping et al v. JTH Tax, Inc. et al

Case: 1:12-cv-02949 Document #: 7 Filed: 05/22/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:19
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of the
Trust on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, I, John
I. Bradshaw, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, President and
Treasurer of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Sec. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a)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 Trust.


                                        /S/ John I. Bradshaw, Jr.
                                            Chief Executive Officer, President
                                             and Treasurer
| (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Registrant. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated      this 29th      day of March, 2010 | By:      /s/ Xiao Ping Zhang |
|----------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                                         | Xiao      Ping Zhang         |
|                                         | Chief      Executive Officer |
|                                         |                         |
|                                         | By:      /s/ Zong Yun Zhou   |
|                                         | Zong      Yun Zhou           |
|                                         | Chief      Financial Officer |

----
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23 - 0473

_________________ IN RE THE PARENTING OF: S.J.W. LEIGH PALMERI, f/k/a LEIGH KRISE.

Petitioner and Appellee, and JEFFERY A. WILLIAMS,

Respondent and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Michael B. Hayworth , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 8 2024

05/08/2024
Case Number: DA 23-0473