alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(April 28, 1980)

#### Phillip A. Bellino et al., Respondents, v Bellino Construction Co., Inc., Appellant.

In an action on a series of promissory notes, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 20, 1979, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of plaintiff in the principal amount of $20,000. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Critical to defendant’s counterclaims had been the date upon which its work at the Fishkill construction site had ended. Consequently, the exclusion from evidence of a letter by plaintiffs’ counsel admitting that defendant had continued its work there through January 18, 1974, constituted reversible error. Admissions by counsel, as by any other agent, are admissible against a party provided that the statements had been made by the attorney while acting in his authorized capacity. *(Burdick v Horowitz,*56 AD2d 882; *People v Rivera,*58 AD2d 147, affd 45 NY2d 989.) Counsel’s admission at bar was made in a letter sent in an attempt to settle the dispute prior to trial. As settlement negotiations are unquestionably within counsel’s authority this statement was properly admissible into evidence, although not necessarily conclusive against plain*631tiffs. (See *People v Rivera,*45 NY2d 989, *supra.)*That the statement was made during settlement negotiations is immaterial, for while an offer of settlement would be inadmissible, admissions made in the course of such negotiations are not. Consequently, the trial court erred in excluding the letter from evidence and as this bore upon the issue central to the case, reversal is warranted. As this case must now be retried, we further note that an adequate foundation had been laid for the introduction of defendant’s Exhibit G, the summary of bills and disbursements kept by the corporation in its regular course of business. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.
#### § 28.957 Special tests and fees.

Tests may be performed for cooperating agencies and organizations to the extent that available facilities will permit, subject to the payment of fees as determined by the Director. Special tests and services not listed in § 28.956 may be performed to the extent that available facilities will permit, subject to the payment of fees determined by the Director.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

          In connection with the amended quarterly report of Northern Ethanol, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the six month period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated        below, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Dated: August 15, 2008 | s/ Richard Smith__________________ |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|

|   | Richard Smith, Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5263/TWK/EMT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

HENRY CONNER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:20cv5263/TKW/EMT

CENTURION OF FLORIDA, LLC, and 

MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, LLC

f/k/a MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC.,

Defendants.

________________________________________/

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Notice Regarding Motion to 

Compel and Request to Conduct Additional Discovery Beyond the Discovery 

Deadline (Notice) (ECF No. 22). In the Notice, Defendants represent that the 

parties have resolved the outstanding discovery disputes, at least in part by Plaintiff 

withdrawing objections to certain discovery requests and agreeing to provide 

additional information and produce additional documents, including documents he 

intends to obtain from his current employer and medical/mental health care 

providers.1 Defendants maintain that during Plaintiff’s September 30 deposition, 

they learned new information regarding Plaintiff’s mitigation efforts and 

1 It is not clear by what date Plaintiff has agreed to supplement his discovery responses.

Case 3:20-cv-05263-TKW-EMT Document 23 Filed 10/09/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5263/TWK/EMT

medical/mental health treatment. After Plaintiff supplements his interrogatory 

responses, therefore, Defendants intend to serve subpoenas on Plaintiff’s prospective 

employers (including one from which Plaintiff testified during his deposition he 

received an offer) and Plaintiff’s medical/mental health providers. Defendants 

request that they be allowed to do so beyond the October 15 discovery deadline. 

Although there is no Rule 7.1 certificate regarding Defendants’ request to serve 

subpoenas beyond the discovery deadline, the undersigned assumes, based on the 

representations set forth in the Notice, that Plaintiff has no objection to the request. 

Defendants’ request thus will be granted. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The hearing scheduled in this matter for October 14, 2020, at 2:00 P.M. 

(Central) is CANCELLED.

2. The discovery deadline is extended for a period of thirty days for the 

limited purpose of Defendants serving the subpoenas described in the Notice. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of October 2020.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05263-TKW-EMT Document 23 Filed 10/09/20 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:99-cr-22/LAC

DERRICK LAMONT STEWART

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Collier on September 1, 2020

Type of Motion/Pleading MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF

SUPERVISED RELEASE

Filed by: Defendant on 9/1//2020 Doc. No. 147

Stipulated/Consented/Joint Pleading/Unopposed

Response: on Doc. No.

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

/s/ Keri Igney 

Deputy Clerk

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 4

th

day of September,

2020 that:

(a) The requested relief is DENIED.

(b) The Court will not consider early termination unless it is brought forward by

the supervising probation officer

 

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:99-cr-00022-LC-MD Document 148 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 1
98-1427.

#### State v. Dula.

Hamilton App. No. C-970504. *Sua sponte,*cause held for the decision in 97-1985, *State v. Cook,*Allen App. No. 1-97-21; briefing schedule stayed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS  ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Stuart Goffman, Chief Financial Officer of BabyUniverse, Inc. (the “Company”) in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1)     the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2)     the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 14th day of November 2006. 

|   | */s/ Stuart Goffman*      |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   |                           |
|   | *Stuart Goffman*          |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

----
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 5, 2009

l0602 

# Order

June 5, 2009

137698

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137698 COA: 277300 Wayne CC: 06-612812-AV SYLVESTER HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 7, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consider ed. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applicati on or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere re statements of their application papers.
§ 322.19 Inspection; refusal of entry. ( a ) APHIS may inspect any restricted organism at the time of importation to determine if the organism meets all of the requirements of this part.
( b ) If, upon inspection, any shipment fails to meet the requirements of the regulations, that shipment will be refused entry into the United States. In accordance with § 322.2(c), the inspector will offer the shipper the opportunity to immediately export any refused shipments. If the shipper declines to immediately export the shipment, we will destroy the shipment at his or her expense.
# VERMONT Vermont 

### Departent of Environmental Conservation Air Pollution Control Division 103 South Main Street , 3 South Waterbury, VT 05671-0402 Agency of Natural Resources

(phone) 802-241- 3840 

## (fax) 802-241-2590 August 26 , 2009 

## Ane Arnold Manager

### , Air Quality Planning Unit 

### U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 Congress Street , Suite 1100 Boston

### , MA 02114- 2023


### Re: 

### VERMONT SIP REVISIONS TO ADDRESS REGIONAL HAZE Dear Ms. Arnold 

### Thank you for the helpful comments you submitted from the US Environmental Protection Agency on February 24 , 2009 in review of the December 18 2008 Draft Revisions to Vermont' s State 

### Implementation Plan (SIP) to address regional haze as required by the federal Regional Haze Rule , 40 CFR 51.309. 

### The State of Vermont has also received review comments on its Draft Regional Haze SIP Revision from 

### the U. S. Deparment of Agriculture , Forest Service 

### , the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and 

### Wildlife Service. Vermont has revised its Regional Haze SIP in accordance with these comments , as

summarized in the attached document entitled: VT Responses to Us. Federal Land Management Agency and Us. Environmental Protection Agency Comments on 12/18/08 and 1/15/09 Draft Revisions to Vermont 

### s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). The enclosed compact disk includes a full copy ofthe current (June 2009) Vermont Regional Haze SIP Revision 

### , including the supporting attachments and documentation. These documents are also available on the Air Pollution Control Division s website at 

### http://ww. anr. state. 

### vt.us/air/Planning/htm/StateImplementationPlan. htm. Our SIP revisions were also submitted to Ira Leighton, EP A Region 1 

### Acting Regional Administrator. If you have any questions 

### , please feel free to contact Heidi Hales of my staff at (802) 241- 3848 or at heidi. hales(fstate. vt. us. Sincerely, 

# r14t1U- tt 

# iu0,t:
Richard A. Valentinetti Director

### , Air Pollution Control Division Enclosure cc via email: Ane McWiliams , EP A Region 1 To preserve , enhance , restore , and conserve Vermont' s natural resources , and protect human health,Jor the benefit of this andfuture generations.
ENCLOSURE 2 : 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 40 CFR § 51 .102 

AND APPENDIX V OF 40 CFR PART 51 
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 40 CFR § 51 .102 

AND APPENDIX V OF 40 CFR PART 51 

REGARDING 

PROPOSED REVISION TO VERMONT'S 

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

TO ADDRESS REGIONAL HAZE 

Public notice of the proposed revision to the Vermont state implementation plan (SIP) to 

address regional haze was published on January 15, 2009 in the following newspapers : 

Burlington Free Press, Rutland Herald, Caledonian Record, Times Argus, and Vermont 

Lawyer. The notice provided the opportunity for interested persons to request a public 

hearing and comment on the proposed revisions. The notice further stated that if a 

hearing was requested by February 17, 2009, the hearing would be held on February 23, 

2009, at 6:00 pin in Stanley Hall Room 100 located on the grounds of the State Office 

Complex at 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont. 

As required by 40 CFR § 51 .102(f), I hereby certify that the requirements of 40 CFR § 

51 .102(a)-(d) were met and that no public hearing was requested during the notification 

period . In accordance with Section 2.1(g) of Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 51,1 further 

certify that the public notice and hearing procedure followed was consistent with the 

information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, as 

applicable . 

Richard A. Valentinetti 

Certifying Officer
#### § 318.13-8 Articles and persons subject to inspection.

In addition to the inspection requirements in §§ 318.13-9 and 318.13-10, persons, means of conveyance (including ships, other oceangoing craft, and aircraft), baggage, cargo, and any other articles, that are destined for movement, are moving, or have been moved from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the U.S. Virgin Islands to a destination elsewhere in the United States are subject to agricultural inspection at the port of departure, the port of arrival, or any other authorized port. If an inspector finds any article prohibited movement by the quarantine and regulations of this subpart, he or she, taking the least drastic action, shall order the return of the article to the place of origin, or the exportation of the article, under safeguards satisfactory to him or her, or otherwise dispose of it, in whole or part, to comply with the quarantine and regulations of this subpart.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:95cr4048-WS

ANDREW LEE HOLZENDORF,

Defendant.

 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REDUCTION IN SENTENCE

Before the court is the defendant's motion for reduction in sentence pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Doc. 175. The defendant, Andrew Lee Holzendorf, seeks a

reduction in his sentence pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment

706. Amendment 706, which reduced the guideline sentencing range for certain

categories of offenses involving cocaine base, was made retroactive effective March 3,

2008. 

The government has responded (doc. 176) in opposition to Holzendorf's motion,

correctly stating that Holzendorf is not entitled to a sentence reduction under

Amendment 706 because his guideline sentencing range has not been lowered by

Amendment 706. 

 The court finding no basis for reducing Holzendorf's sentence, it is ORDERED: 

Holzendorf's motion for reduction in sentence (doc. 175) is DENIED.

Case 4:95-cr-04048-WS-WCS Document 177 Filed 09/02/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of September , 2008.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:95-cr-04048-WS-WCS Document 177 Filed 09/02/08 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03-CR-061-SPM

MELVIN MARTIN,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL AND SETTING HEARING

ON “REQUEST FOR INQUIRY”

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the “Second Notice of Schedule

Conflict and Agreed Motion to Continue Trial” (doc. 19) and the “Request for an

Inquiry” (doc. 18), both filed June 21, 2005. In addition to the valid grounds cited by

the Government in its motion to continue, the Court finds a continuance to be

appropriate because of Defendant’s expressed dissatisfaction with counsel. The

Public Defender has requested that the Court make an inquiry of Defendant and

determine whether he should be appointed new counsel.

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance

outweigh the best interests of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The motion to continue (doc. 19) is hereby granted. 

Case 4:03-cr-00061-MW-CAS Document 20 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 4:03-cr-061-SPM

2. Trial is reset for Monday, July 18, 2005 at 8:30am at the United 

States Courthouse in Tallahassee, Florida. 

3. The request for inquiry (doc. 18) is hereby granted.

4. A hearing on the request for inquiry shall be held at noon on

Wednesday, June 29, 2005.

DONE AND ORDERED this twenty-second day of June, 2005.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

/pao

Case 4:03-cr-00061-MW-CAS Document 20 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 2
# CI2021360EN.01000101.xml

| 8.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 360/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 360/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 6 September 2021

adopting the Council’s position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2022

(2021/C 360 I/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314(3) thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Whereas:

| 1. | On 9 July 2021, the Commission submitted a proposal containing the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2022 (1), |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 9 July 2021, the Commission submitted a proposal containing the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2022 (1),

| 2. | The Council examined the Commission proposal with a view to defining a position consistent, on the revenue side, with Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 of 14 December 2020 on the system of own resources of the European Union and repealing Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom (2), and, on the expenditure side, with Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027 (3). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council examined the Commission proposal with a view to defining a position consistent, on the revenue side, with Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2020/2053 of 14 December 2020 on the system of own resources of the European Union and repealing Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom (2), and, on the expenditure side, with Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027 (3).

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council’s position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2022 was adopted by the Council on 6 September 2021.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 6 September 2021.

For the Council

The President

G. DOVŽAN

---

(1)  COM(2021) 300 final.

1

(2)  OJ L 424, 15.12.2020, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 11.

3

---
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARRELL J. MOORE, Sr.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY

OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56543

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-07632-GW-CW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 24, 2013** 

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Darrell J. Moore, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants conspired and

retaliated against him for his advocacy on behalf of low-income tenants. We have

FILED

AUG 05 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-56543

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393

F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Moore’s claims against Judge White

because Judge White is immune from suit for damages. See Mireles v. Waco, 502

U.S. 9, 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (judges are absolutely immune from suits for

damages based on their judicial conduct except when performing nonjudicial

functions or acting in the complete absence of jurisdiction). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to

amend because the deficiencies in Moore’s complaint could not be cured by

amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be

given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moore’s motion to

vacate the judgment because Moore’s filing of his notice of appeal divested the

district court of jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 771-

72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that the filing of

a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction to consider a motion to

vacate the judgment). 
3 11-56543

Moore’s contention that the district court treated him unfairly is not

supported by the record.

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett

v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Margaret Colton, appellee, v. Reinhold Nelson, appellant.

Gen. No. 37,515.

O’Connor, P. J., dissenting.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

John A. Bloomingston, for appellant. Wright & Kamin, for appellee; Alfred Kamin, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
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 Annual Report of Candela Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
June 28, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerard E. Puorro, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/GERARD E. PUORROGerard E. Puorro Chief Executive OfficerSeptember 11, 2008


---



QuickLinks