alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cypress Hills Cemetery, Appellant, v. Werner *&*Acker Cypress Hills Florists, Inc., Respondent. (And Another Action.)

Resettled order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 1, 1966, modified by adding to the decretal paragraph which dismissed the complaint against respondent a provision granting leave to appellant to serve a further amended complaint. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant. The time to serve the further amended complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. Judgment of said court, dated February 4, 1966, reversed, without costs. Plaintiff, a cemetery corporation, sued to terminate a provision of an arbitration award, pursuant to the terms thereof. Special Term, upon searching the record in respect to plaintiff’s motion to strike defenses, held that plaintiff had no capacity to sue and dismissed the complaint pursuant to statute (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], par. 3). The critical clause which we must construe próvides: “ There exists a binding agreement between Cypress Hills Cemetery and *733Emily C. Haas that the Cemetery will not render any care service or engage in the sale of plants, flowers, wreaths, evergreens or spreads of any kind. Such agreement shall remain in full force and effect until such time as the Cemetery or its plot owners can demonstrate in a proper tribunal that the Cemetery requires the revenue to be derived from seasonal care income or special care service or the sale of plants, flowers, wreaths, evergreens or spreads of any kind for current and perpetual maintenance and preservation of the Cemetery and that the deprivation of such income is the substantial cause of (a) the Cemetery’s inability to maintain itself; or (b) that the plot owners are adversely affected by the agreement.” The clear expression of that provision is that plaintiff and the plot owners each have an independent right to seek termination of the agreement on either of the stated grounds. While thus disagreeing with Special Term’s holding that plaintiff has no capacity to sue, we are mindful of the weakness of the present amended complaint, in that it merely avers that the plot owners “ have been adversely affected by the agreement ”, Defendant is entitled to a more precise and clearer expression of the grounds upon which plaintiff seeks termination of the agreement (CPLR 3013; 3024, subd. [a]). Under the circumstances, although the present amended complaint is therefore insufficient, plaintiff should be accorded a further opportunity to plead a cause of action. In view of our modification of the order, the judgment must accordingly be reversed. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
1The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 98-2061/2074

___________

Tadeusz Radecki, *

*

Appellant/Cross-Appellee, *

*

v. *

* Appeals from the United States

Board of Regents, University of * District Court for the

Nebraska; Roy F. Keller; John G. * District of Nebraska

Peters; David A. Klarner; Joseph Y-T *

Leung; William E. Splinter, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees/Cross-Appellants. *

___________

 Submitted: March 31, 1999

 Filed: May 17, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tadeusz Radecki appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the District of Nebraska dismissing his employment discrimination action without

prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. For reversal Radecki argues the district court erred
-2-

in dismissing the action rather than extending the deadlines and appointing substitute

counsel, denying his motion for an independent mental evaluation, and sanctioning him

for not appearing at his deposition. Defendants cross-appeal the “without prejudice”

aspect of the dismissal. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of

the district court.

After the district court had appointed new counsel for Radecki several times, had

appointed a guardian ad litem, and had extended case deadlines on several occasions,

Radecki filed a motion to stay further proceedings until an indefinite time when he

would be able to resume his involvement in the action. The court construed the motion

as one for voluntary dismissal and granted it, dismissing the case without prejudice.

We hold the district court did not err in so construing the motion, and thus affirm the

dismissal without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (court may dismiss at

plaintiff’s instance “upon such terms and conditions as [it] deems proper”). We also

hold that the district court did not err in assessing to Radecki the cost of a missed

deposition, see Hutchins v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 116 F.3d 1256, 1260 (8th Cir.

1997) (because district courts are more familiar with proceedings and counsel’s

conduct, this court gives district court large measure of discretion in determining

appropriate sanctions); in conditioning any refiling of the action upon Radecki’s

payment of previously incurred attorney’s fees and costs, see Kern v. TXO Prod.

Corp., 738 F.2d 968, 971-72 (8th Cir. 1984) (payment of fees and costs may be proper

condition for dismissal under Rule 41(a)); or in implicitly denying Radecki’s motion

for an evaluation of his mental condition.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHigh speed research system study. Advanced flight deck configuration effectsIn mid-1991 NASA contracted with industry to study the high-speed civil transport (HSCT) flight deck challenges and assess the benefits, prior to initiating their High Speed Research Program (HSRP) Phase 2 efforts, then scheduled for FY-93. The results of this nine-month effort are presented, and a number of the most significant findings for the specified advanced concepts are highlighted: (1) a no nose-droop configuration; (2) a far forward cockpit location; and (3) advanced crew monitoring and control of complex systems. The results indicate that the no nose-droop configuration is critically dependent upon the design and development of a safe, reliable, and certifiable Synthetic Vision System (SVS). The droop-nose configuration would cause significant weight, performance, and cost penalties. The far forward cockpit location, with the conventional side-by-side seating provides little economic advantage; however, a configuration with a tandem seating arrangement provides a substantial increase in either additional payload (i.e., passengers) or potential downsizing of the vehicle with resulting increases in performance efficiencies and associated reductions in emissions. Without a droop nose, forward external visibility is negated and takeoff/landing guidance and control must rely on the use of the SVS. The technologies enabling such capabilities, which de facto provides for Category 3 all-weather operations on every flight independent of weather, represent a dramatic benefits multiplier in a 2005 global ATM network: both in terms of enhanced economic viability and environmental acceptability.Document ID19920021721Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsSwink, Jay R.*(Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc. Long Beach, CA, United States)*Goins, Richard T.*(Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc. Long Beach, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1992Subject CategoryAircraft InstrumentationReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:189650NASA-CR-189650Accession Number92N30965Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-19345Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920021721.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2405 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2405

        To extend the temporary duty suspension for acetanisole.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2006

  Mr. DeMint introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To extend the temporary duty suspension for acetanisole.

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

SECTION 1. ACETANISOLE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.05.05 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to p-Acetanisole) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 5, 2011 

t0928 

Order 

 

October 5, 2011 

143054 

LORI MAINKA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 143054 

 COA: 299141 

Alpena CC: 10-003203-NI 

CODY LAPCZYNSKI, GARY 

LAPCZYNSKI, and AUTO-OWNERS 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court. 

 HATHAWAY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2507 

To restrict funds related to escalating United States military involvement 

in Syria. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 26, 2013 

Mr. MASSIE (for himself, Mr. AMASH, Mr. JONES, Mr. YOHO, Mr. ROE of 

Tennessee, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. PITTS, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. 

DESJARLAIS, and Mr. GOHMERT) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the 

Committees on Armed Services and Select Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To restrict funds related to escalating United States military 

involvement in Syria. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘War Powers Protection 

5 Act of 2013’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2507 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDS TO ESCALATE UNITED 

2 STATES MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN SYRIA. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—No funds made available to the 

4 Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, 

5 or any other agency or entity of the United States involved 

6 in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for 

7 the purpose of, or in a manner which would have the effect 

8 of, supporting, directly or indirectly, military or para9 military operations in Syria by any nation, group, organi10 zation, movement, or individual. 

11 (b) DURATION OF PROHIBITION.—The prohibition 

12 under subsection (a) shall cease to apply only with a for13 mal declaration of war pursuant to article I, section 8 of 

14 the Constitution. 

15 (c) QUARTERLY REPORTS.—Not later than 90 days 

16 after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 

17 days thereafter, the Secretary of State shall submit to 

18 Congress a report on assistance provided to groups, orga19 nizations, movements, and individuals in Syria. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

J.C.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-283-AW-MAF

JIMMY HIGHSMITH and 

NAKAMOTO GROUP INC.,

Defendants.

________________________________

J.P.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-317-AW-MAF

JIMMY HIGHSMITH and 

NAKAMOTO GROUP INC.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Based on the court’s earlier order (No. 4:20-cv-283 ECF No. 87; 4:20-cv-317 

ECF No. 42)—to which there has been no response—the remaining claims in this 

case are now dismissed. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “The claims 

against Defendants Jimmy Highsmith and Nakamoto Group Inc. are dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” The clerk will then close the file.

The clerk will file this in both cases.

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED on August 1, 2022.

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00317-AW-MAF Document 43 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.36 Auction market.

A place to which tobacco is delivered by the producers thereof, or their agents, for sale at auction through a warehouseman or commission merchant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial
statements together with the related footnotes thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          26,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,080
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     65,690
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,640
<PP&E>                                         169,287
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,772
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 629,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,405
<BONDS>                                        571,854
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,714)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   629,174
<SALES>                                        244,849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               244,849
<CGS>                                          136,335
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  136,335
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,214
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,456
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,053
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,107
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,946
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,946
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28705]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Extension of Concession Contract; 2410-OYC

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Public notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: Effective Date: December 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo A. Pendry, Chief, Commercial 
Services Program, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street, NW., 11th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20005, Telephone 202/513-7156.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 36 CFR 51.23, public notice is hereby given that 
the National Park Service proposes to extend the following expiring 
concession contract for a period of three years through November 30, 
2013.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The listed concession authorization will 
expire by its terms on November 30, 2010. The National Park Service has 
determined that the proposed extension is necessary in order to avoid 
interruption of visitor services and has taken all reasonable and 
appropriate steps to consider alternatives to avoid such interruption.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Conc ID No.                   Concessioner name                           Park
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YELL077-05............................  Xanterra Parks & Resorts,  Yellowstone National Park.
                                         Inc..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo A. Pendry, Chief, Commercial 
Services Program, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street, NW., 11th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20005, Telephone 202/513-7156.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
Katherine H. Stevenson,
Associate Director, Business Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-28705 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-53-P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

KEVIN JEROME PARKER, JR., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2893

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 27, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee

County; Joseph C. Fuller, Jr., Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Siobhan Helene Shea, Special

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow,

for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Richard L. Polin,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa,

for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, SALARIO, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3405

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3405 appear at 76 FR 4808, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3405.10 Program application materials.

Program application materials in an application package will be made available to eligible institutions upon request. These materials include the program announcement, the administrative provisions for the program, and the forms needed to prepare and submit grant applications under the program.
#### William J. Camperlino et al., Respondents, v State of New York Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Case held, decision reserved, and matter remitted to the Court of Claims for further findings in accordance with the following memorandum: In determining consequential damages for the appropriations the trial court properly considered the assemblage as a single tract. It did not, however, explain the weight that it accorded to the evidence of the recent sale of one of the constituent parcels. The lack of evidence in the record concerning this sale precludes intelligent appellate review. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims—appropriation.) Present —Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
Exhibit 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL

OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Material Sciences Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Clifford D. Nastas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



January 9, 2009By:

/s/ Clifford D. NastasClifford D. NastasChief Executive Officer


In connection with the Report, I, James M. Froisland, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief
Information Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



January 9, 2009By:

/s/ James M. FroislandJames M. FroislandSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer and Corporate Secretary
Case 3:20-cr-00043-MCR Document 54 Filed 07/26/21 Page 1 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00043-MCR Document 54 Filed 07/26/21 Page 2 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00043-MCR Document 54 Filed 07/26/21 Page 3 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00043-MCR Document 54 Filed 07/26/21 Page 4 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00043-MCR Document 54 Filed 07/26/21 Page 5 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00043-MCR Document 54 Filed 07/26/21 Page 6 of 7
Case 3:20-cr-00043-MCR Document 54 Filed 07/26/21 Page 7 of 7