alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hilldun Corporation, Appellant, v Scarboro Textiles, Inc., Respondent, and Chemical Bank, Respondent-Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 7, 1978, granting defendant’s cross motion to vacate a default judgment and denying plaintiff’s motion for a turnover order against the nonappealing defendant Chemical Bank unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs and disbursements, defendant’s cross motion to vacate denied, and plaintiff’s motion for a turnover order granted. In this action to recover on an account receivable for goods delivered to defendant by plaintiff’s assignor, jurisdiction was acquired by service under subdivision (b) of section 306 of the Business Corporation Law of a summons and complaint upon the Secretary of State. Defendant defaulted. When plaintiff, by special proceeding (CPLR 5225, subd [b]>, sought to direct Chemical Bank to turn over funds of defendant on account with Chemical, defendant moved to open its default, claiming that it never received a copy of process. Under the statute service is complete when the Secretary of State is served. Noting that mistake or inadvertence by the Secretary of State in forwarding copies of process to a defendant is a proper ground for opening a default, Special Term granted relief conditioned upon plaintiff serving an answer within 20 days. "A defendant in default * * * must show that there is support in fact for his denials and defenses.” *(Investment Corp. of Phila. v Spector,*12 AD2d 911.) In addition, an affidavit to vacate should be accompanied by a proposed answer. *(Levine v Fal-Bar Argentinian Corner Rest,*18 AD2d 611.) Aside from failing to submit a proposed answer, defendant did not provide any factual support in its affidavit for its arguments that "defendant owes the plaintiff no money, nor does defendant owe any monies to the plaintiff’s alleged assignor”, or for its claim that "the alleged assignor to the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant”. The affidavit by defendant’s president merely contained a denial of any obligations, and contained the conclusory state*536ment that "I have gone over the facts of this case with my * * * attorney and he has informed me, and I verily believe, that defendant has a good and meritorious defense to the plaintiffs suit.” Without a factual showing of merit to its defenses, defendant’s motion should not have been granted. We note that it is significant, in ascertaining the alleged merits of the defense, that defendant failed to dispute its indebtedness or respond when plaintiff sent it monthly invoices as to the status of the sums owed. That defendant first disclaimed the existence of a debt after demand had been made, judgment entered, and an attempt to enforce judgment commenced, presents a major obstacle to the credibility of an argument unaccompanied by factual support or documentation. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

#### § 2.200 Principal Deputy General Counsel.

Pursuant to § 2.31, the following delegation of authority is made by the General Counsel to the Principal Deputy General Counsel, to be exercised only during the absence or unavailability of the General Counsel: Perform all duties and exercise all powers that are now or which may hereafter be delegated to the General Counsel.

[78 FR 40940, July 9, 2013]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

EARL ROY HARVEY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50184

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01144-AHM-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 8, 2013

Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, and may affirm on

any ground fairly supported by the record. United States v. Mayer, 560 F.3d 948,

956 (9th Cir. 2009).

FILED

APR 30 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Harvey’s probation officer saw a computer and broadband card in Harvey’s

bedroom; Harvey admitted to using the computer, accessing the Internet, and

communicating with another convicted felon, all in violation of his terms of

supervised release; and a forensic review of the computer indicated that Harvey

had replaced the hard drive before turning it over to the Probation Office: there was

a non-factory hard drive and all the files on it had been loaded after the probation

officer saw the computer. These facts established probable cause to believe that

Harvey was in violation of his terms of supervised release, and, therefore, probable

cause to search his residence for further evidence related to these violations,

including the original hard drive. In light of the facts of the case, the information

supporting the search was not stale when the search was conducted, about two

months after the initial sighting of the laptop and one month after the forensic

review. See United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1997).

Because the residential search was valid, the evidence seized during that

search need not be excised from the affidavit supporting the search warrant for

Harvey’s email account. Therefore, the email warrant was also supported by

probable cause. 
3

We need not decide any of the other issues urged by the parties, including

whether the residential search could have been justified by less than probable

cause.

AFFIRMED.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of A.L.P., a Child Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 144

- C V
Trial court case number: 1 8

- DCV

- 252443
Trial court: 505 th District Court of Fort Bend County

Proceeding pro se, a ppellant, C.J.M., has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s final decree of termination. Appellant’s brief initially was due on April 29, 2019. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28

. 4(a), 38.6(a). And, we extend ed the time for filing appellant’s brief to June 3, 2019, with no extensions absent extraordinary circumstances

. Appellant has filed a motion for an extension of time to file his brief. We grant the motion. Appellant’s brief is due no later than MONDAY, JULY 1, 2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d). Because this appeal involves the termination of the parent

- child relationship, this Court is required to bring the appeal to final disposition no later than August 2 6 , 2019 , so far as reasonably possible. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2, reprinted in Tex. Gov’t. Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. F app. Accordingly, n o further extensions of time will be granted. 1

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ June 11, 2019

__

1 “Pro se l itigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable and mandatory rules of pleading and rules of procedure. ” Morr is v. Am. Home Mortg. Serv

. , Inc. , 360 S.W.3d 32, 36 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) ; s ee Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn , 573 S.W.2d 181, 184

– 85 (Tex. 1978); Green

v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n

, No. 01

- 18

- 00258

- CV, 2019 WL 1716347, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 18, 2019 , no pet. h. )

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE MOST RECENT ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 
10-K OF RESEARCH FRONTIERS INCORPORATED FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996 
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         457,959
<SECURITIES>                                 7,651,364
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,193,639
<PP&E>                                         167,846
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,425,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          208,294
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,066,897
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,425,141
<SALES>                                         50,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               413,206
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,938,044
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,474,838)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,474,838)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)
        

</TABLE>
Wyoming Nitrate Contribution to Wind Cave Worst

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total WICA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 WY 0.1116875 0.0003833 0.0919708 0.0048917 0.0194875 0.2284208 Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Worst) to Nitr ate at Wind Cave = 0.23 divided by 1.3, or 18% Best

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total WICA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 WY 0.1782217 0.0003087 0.1103739 0.0071522 0.0428261 0.3388826 Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Best) to Nitrate at Wind Cave = 0.34 divided by 1, or 34%
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**Theundersigned officer of **Standard Aero Holdings, Inc.**herebycertifies pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to suchofficer’s knowledge that: 1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Standard AeroHoldings, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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 andresults of operations of Standard Aero Holdings, Inc.     Date:May 12, 2006           By: /s/ David Shaw      Name: David Shaw  Title: Chief Executive Officer     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
s rATE OF IDAHO 

DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

1,) tO North H Itnn · 8oll:oe. Idaho B37fl6 ' ,20S> :~n OrAl:l 

February 9, 2015 

Ms. Kale Kell y, Director 

Offi ce or Air, Waste and Tox ics 

L.~ . EPA Region 10 

1200 Sixlh Ave. - A WT-1 50 

S"anle, WA 98 10 1 

Dear Ms. Kell y: 

r l "Bulchk OUP" GD\lemor 

CUrl Fratl'Stll' OI({JC10r 

Idah o Depm1menr of En virollmelHa l QU8 1i ty (IDEQ) has diligenlly developed this Revised Authori zation 

App li cation for ils H.:1zClrdous Waste Program with respect ro regu lations found in Title 40, Parts 271 .6 and 

.," i 1.2 I. Code of i'..:Jcral Regulati on. I DFQ has g(ll y prolllu fga teD Idaho haz3rdolls wClste rules C1Jld 

standa rds to incorporate all fi na l. fede ra l delegable haz[lrdous was te reg ulations to July 1,20 13 (n o fin al 

federal deleLiable hazardous waSle r~ ti s were promul ga ted betw ~cn July 1, 20 J::! throu gh Jld y 1, 

201 3). The Attorney Gener(]I' ~ Statement hd!' bec.:n rev ised to indicate updateu qui val l1 cy and the 

Program Description notes any challg(!s since th e l41 st auth ori za ti on approval 10 Jul y 1.20 I 0 whIch wa::, 

fin ali zed by the U.S. Environment"1 Prote'·l iol1 A!!cney, Region 10 (EPA) 011 July 11 , 2012. 

Man y of tile documents contClined ill (his Revised Authoriza tion Application have not substanti ve ly 

changed. However. J major effort was und erta~e n to revise the RCR A Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA). Any orher documents thllt have changed arl! incl uded or nOTed in this Revised Authorization 

Applicat ion. 

IDEO intends to continue 10 operate ;)n exemplary hazardous wasle program. By section 39-4404 of lhe 

Idaho Hazardous Wasle MCt llagl.! lIlenl A CI, I DEQ is ir~cte d by the Idaho Legislature 10 ~b!) uml! primacy 

and mai ntain consistency with Ihe federa l hazardous \'\<Jste management program. A ke y to (he success and 

consistency or the IDEO Hazardous a.j e Program has been the ollgoit1 !-'.. mut ua l, long standing \-\lo rking 

relat ionsh ip th~1 EPA Region 10 and IDEO have deve loped. maintained. and valued over the yea rs. IDEQ 

wo uld speci fi ca ll y like to thank Ms. Burhara McCu llough of EPA for her work on lh ls pro.iect, particul arly 

the reviS ion of tbe RCRA MOA. 

With this Revised Authorization Appli cation for RCRA Clu sters XXI .:1nd XXII, IDEQ requ est(j U progra11l 

revision to extend hazardolls w3 slc prog ram auth ority for all final federal delegable hazard ous waste 

regulations pi ollluigaled frOIll July 1, 20 I010 July I, ~O IJ. 

Plcase contact John Brueck of Ill y sioff al (208) 373-04:;8 or bye-mail 31 John.Brueck:lI'<ic q. id aho.gov, if 

you h<lVe any questions regard ing IIlis Revised l\u thori zariOll Applic<Hio n. 

Sil1 cerJIY, 

;" J. 11 ) ~ ) 

Brii.l n R. Monson 

HJzardous Waste Program M.Hlager 

Waste Management Jnd Remcd imioll Di vi~ l1 

File: AU w2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Archives and Records Administration

# AGENCY:

National Archives and Records Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress. The committee advises NARA on the full range of programs, policies, and plans for the Center for Legislative Archives in the Office of Records Services. The meeting will be open to the public.

# DATES:

This meeting will be held on December 6, 2010 from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

Capitol Visitor Center, Congressional Meeting Room South.

      ( print page 70032)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard H. Hunt, Director; Center  for Legislative Archives; (202) 357-5350.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Agenda*

(1) Chair's opening remarks—Clerk of the House;

(2) Recognition of Co-chair—Secretary of the Senate;

(3) Recognition of the Archivist of the United States;

(4) Approval of the minutes of the last meeting;

(5) Discussion of on-going projects and activities;

(6) Annual Report of the Center for Legislative Archives;

(7) Other current issues and new business.

Dated: November 9, 2010.

Mary Ann Hadyka,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-28794 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
#### Poston *vs.*Young.

Motion. Case 154.

Error to the Logan County Court.

*■Guardian, appointment of. County court. Orphans.*

County court has no jurisdiction or power lo appoint a guardian for an infant while the father of the infant is alive.

A ■ orphan, in It gal p -.rlaiii c, is a fatln .loss chilli.

*Mordicad*and *Ewing*for plaintiff; *Breathitt for*defendant.

October 13.

Judge Nicholas

delivered the opinion of tie court.

Upon the application of Young, the county court, appointed him guardian to the infant daughter of Poston, it appearing that she was the proprietor of a valuable estate derived from her deceased mother, and the court having first offered to •confer the appointment on Poston, which he refused to take.

The court had no jurisdiction or. authority to appoint a guardian to the infant. The statute only confers tfie authority in cases of orphans. An orphan, in legal parlance, is a fatherless child.

Order reversed, with costs, and case remanded, with directions to set aside and annul the order.
(April 24, 1980)

#### In the Matter of Elaine M. Gunderud, Appellant, v John E. Gunderud, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County, entered August 11, 1978, which awarded custody of the parties’ three minor children to respondent. The parties have three children and petitioner moved to Texas with the youngest, a daughter then four years of age, shortly after she commenced a divorce action against respondent in June of 1977. The older children, a son born in September of 1963 and a daughter born in June of 1966, continued to live with their father in Saugerties, New York. A judgment of divorce based on respondent’s counterclaim was granted in February of 1978 and the issue of custody was referred to Family Court (Family Ct Act, § 652). Following hearings on the question, at which the parties and the older children testified, custody of all three was awarded to respondent and this appeal by petitioner ensued. We conclude that the order of Family Court should be affirmed. Unlike the situation presented in *People ex rel. Selbert v Selbert*(60 AD2d 692), the parties here had not reached any agreement or understanding concerning the custody of their children. Family Court was faced with the task of determining their best long-term interest in the absence of any established parental arrangement or prior judicial decision on the subject. Its decision reflects that careful attention was paid to all relevant factors and we cannot say that discretion was abused in awarding custody to respondent. We note that neither parent was found to be unfit or, for that matter, more fit to provide for the children. The lifestyle of the younger daughter was not examined and the older siblings expressed a preference to remain with their father. With the choice so evenly balanced, Family Court accorded that consideration the weight it was due and properly took into account the familial stability and companionship that would be advanced by keeping the children together (cf. *Matter of Ebert v Ebert,*38 NY2d 700; *Obey v Degling,*37 NY2d 768). Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur. *693advanced by the State concerning rulings on evidentiary matters and the amount of the award to be without merit. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to claimant Delilah Plumadore. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Casey, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Ward Leonard Electric Co., Inc., Respondent, v Evan A. Rubino, as Assessor of the City of Mount Vernon, et al., Appellants.

— Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated March 21, 1979, affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. (See *Matter of Stevens Med. Arts Bldg, v City of Mount Vernon,*72 AD2d 177.) Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2
                                  ------------

                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 Annual Report of China Resources Development,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Tam Cheuk Ho, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Tam Cheuk Ho

Tam Cheuk Ho
Chief Financial Officer
March 30, 2004
98-1699.

#### E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition regarding an expedited election matter. Upon consideration of the motion for leave to intervene by Mary Ann Miller and Concerned Citizens for Troy Township,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for leave to intervene be, and hereby is, granted.

Cook, J., not participating.
FORM 8-K

 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Current Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): July 22, 2004

 

NOLAND COMPANY

 

A Virginia Corporation IRS Identification #54-0320170

 

Commission File No. #2-27393

 

80 29th Street

Newport News, VA 23607

Telephone: (757) 928-9000

Item 7. Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Statements and Exhibits

(c) Exhibits

Exhibit Number			Description

99			Press Release dated July 22,2004

Item 12. Results of Operations and Financial Condition

On July 22, 2004, Noland Company issued a press release reporting its financial results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004. A copy of the release is attached as Exhibit 99 to this Form 8-K.

The information in this Form 8-K, including Exhibit 99, shall not be deemed "filed" for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.

 

SIGNATURE

Pursuant of the requirement of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

								The Noland Company

Date: July 26, 2004			 By: Arthur P. Henderson, Jr.

							 Arthur P. Henderson, Jr.

							 Vice President - Finance