alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

492 

CA 15-01234 

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

 

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KIP C. CARTER, SALLY ANN CARTER, ALSO KNOWN AS 

SALLY ANN M. CARTER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS,

ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

 

DAVIDSON FINK LLP, ROCHESTER (LARRY T. POWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme

Court, Onondaga County (James P. Murphy, J.), entered June 18, 2014. 

The order and judgment dismissed the complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from 

is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the complaint is

reinstated. 

Memorandum: In this mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff

appeals from an order and judgment, issued sua sponte, dismissing the

complaint without prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure to meet a

single court-ordered deadline for filing a motion for a judgment of

foreclosure. We reverse. Supreme Court erred in dismissing the

complaint sua sponte “inasmuch as ‘[u]se of the [sua sponte] power of

dismissal must be restricted to the most extraordinary 

circumstances’ ” (BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v Maestri, 134 AD3d

1593, 1593), such as “a pattern of willful noncompliance with

court-ordered deadlines,” and no such extraordinary circumstances are

reflected in the record before us (Bank of Am., N.A. v Bah, 95 AD3d

1150, 1152; see NYCTL 2008-A Trust v Estate of Locksley Holas, 93 AD3d

650, 651; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Guichardo, 90 AD3d 1032, 1033). “Although

‘a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity’ . . . , we

conclude that missing a single deadline by one week does not ‘warrant

the court’s exercise of its power to dismiss a complaint sua sponte’ ”

(Citimortgage, Inc. v Petragnani, 137 AD3d 1688, ___).

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Fourth Department,

March, 1980

(March 28, 1980)*

#### W. T. Grant Company, Respondent, v Robert Srogi, as Commissioner of Assessment of City of Syracuse, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

*

Not published with other decisions of March, 1980, 74 AD2d 990. [Rep.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted and question certified. Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          47,173
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,805
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      43,213,898
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,435,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,635,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,735,390
<BONDS>                                     33,046,916
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (16,850,682)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,635,166
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,227,980
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,517,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,320,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,010,967)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,010,967)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,010,967)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (96.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

MAI SYSTEMS CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of MAI Systems Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, William Brian Kretzmer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for the purpose of Title 18, Chapter 18, 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: August 14, 2002 |  | /s/William Brian Kretzmer
William Brian Kretzmer
Chief Executive Officer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-11486

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VINCENT AUBYN DELHALL, also

known as Sawyer,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:92-CR-365-D

- - - - - - - - - -

November 17, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Vincent Aubyn Delhall, federal prisoner # 26013-083, appeals

the district court’s denial of his motion for leave to file an

out-of-time appeal. Delhall did not file a notice of appeal

within the 60-day period established in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) for

cases in which the United States is a party. Delhall did not

file his motion for leave to file an out-of-time appeal within 30

days after the expiration of the applicable 60-day appeals period

as required by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). He did not file his 
No. 96-11486

-2-

motion for leave to file an out-of-time appeal either within

seven days after receiving notice of the entry of the district

court’s order or within 180 days of the entry of the district

court’s judgment as required by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Delhall’s motion for leave to file an out-of-time appeal. 

See Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d 1199, 1201 (5th

Cir. 1993); In re Jones, 970 F.2d 36, 39 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Because Delhall did not file a timely notice of appeal and

because the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying his motion for leave to file an out-of-time appeal, we

lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of

Delhall’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of his

sentence. Accordingly, Delhall’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction. Delhall’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal is DENIED as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED; IFP MOTION DENIED AS MOOT.
•

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 59

. Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous Units;

Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators

54 m 615-617

January 9, 1989

(non-HSWA Cluster V)

Note: This is a correction and clarification of 52 FR 46946 (December 10, 1987)

addressed by Revision Checklist 45. States are encouraged to adopt these

corrections at the same time that the requirements for Revision Checklist 45 are

. adopted.

A June 22, 1989 (54 FR 26198) final rule amended the preamble of the December 10,

1987 rule addressed by Revision Checklist 45. Because this was the only change made

by this final rule, a checklist was not developed for it, nor was it incorporated

into this present checklist.

STATE ANALOG IS:

FEDERAL

REQUIREMENT

FEDERAL

RCRA

CITATION

ANALOGOUS

STATE

CITATION

EQUIVALENT

MORE' BRQADSTRIN- ER IN

GENT SCQPE'

•

•

PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE

HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM

SUBPART B - PERMIT APPLICATION

CONTENTS OF PART B: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS WAC 173-303

change "264.194" to

"264.193(i)"; add

"264.195" 270.14(b)(5) -806(4)(a)(v) X

add reference to

264.197 270.14(b)(13) -806(4)(a)(xiii) X

January 9, 1989 - Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 1045

#### Editorial Notes:Nomenclature changes to part 1045 appear at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023, and 88 FR 82238, Nov. 24, 2023.

§ 1045.170 What is the purpose of this subpart?

Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1045 appear at 88 FR 41294, June 26, 2023, and 88 FR 82238, Nov. 24, 2023.

This subpart contains requirements that apply when Federal agencies other than DOE receive FOIA or MDR requests for matter that is marked as or potentially contains RD, FRD, or TFNI. RD, FRD, and TFNI are classified under the Atomic Energy Act and are not subject to the provisions governing MDR requests under E.O. 13526 or successor orders. To ensure RD, FRD, and TFNI are considered and appropriately reviewed when requested under a FOIA or MDR request, this section describes the process Federal agencies must follow for FOIA and MDR requests for matter that is marked as or potentially contains RD, FRD, or TFNI.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis

SIGNET BANKING CORPORATION AND AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0805-95-2 PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 DEBORAH MEADE-CROMER

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Lynne Jones Blain; Michelle P. Wiltshire; Morris and Morris, on briefs), for appellants. (Deborah Meade-Cromer, pro se , on brief).

Signet Banking Corporation and its insurer (hereinafter collectively referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that the employer was responsible for the cost of certain treatment rendered to Deborah Meade-Cromer by Dr. Terry Whipple, an orthopedic surgeon. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily

affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v.

Mullins , 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). "Whether the employer is responsible for medical expenses . . . depends upon: (1) whether the medical service was causally2 related to the industrial injury; (2) whether such other medical attention was necessary; and (3) whether the treating physician made a referral . . . [of] the patient." Volvo White Truck Corp. v. Hedge , 1 Va. App. 195, 199, 336 S.E.2d 903, 906 (1985). The parties do not dispute that Dr. Whipple's treatment was causally related to Meade-Cromer's industrial accident and that it was necessary. Addressing the referral, the commission found

as follows: We consider Dr. [Forrest] Jessee's September 2, 1994 letter a valid referral. It is clear that in Dr. Jessee's opinion, Meade-Cromer was in need of surgical intervention that Dr. Whipple could provide. While Meade-Cromer may have initially treated with Dr. Whipple on her own initiative, on September 2, 1994, her treating physician, Dr. Jessee, officially referred her to Dr. Whipple.

Dr. Jessee's September 2, 1994 letter provides credible evidence to support the commission's finding that he made a valid referral of Meade-Cromer to Dr. Whipple. We find no merit in employer's argument that because Meade-Cromer had previously sought unauthorized treatment from Dr. Whipple, for which employer was not held responsible, Dr. Jessee's later referral

was not valid. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision.

Affirmed.
Case 2:06-cv-00665-WHA-WC Document 51 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER ZUNIGA, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D22-3246 March 13, 2024 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(1)(A), (F) from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Lon Arend, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison C. Heim, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. CASANUEVA, LaROSE, and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
EXHIBIT 31.1 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)


I, Todd Axelrod, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Gallery of
History, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. the registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.


Date:  August 13, 2004

                                 /s/ TODD AXELROD
                                _______________________
                                Todd Axelrod
                                Chief Executive Officer
SUBCHAPTER B - COMPETITION AND

ACQUISITION PLANNING

PART 305 - PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

PART 306 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

PART 307 - ACQUISITION PLANNING

PART 308 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

PART 309 - CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

PART 310 - MARKET RESEARCH

PART 311 - DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS

PART 312 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

PART 305 - PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS

Subpart 305.3 - Synopses of Contract Awards

305.303 Announcement of contract awards.

Subpart 305.5 - Paid Advertisements

305.502 Authority.

Subpart 305.70 - Publicizing Requirements Funded From the Affordable Care Act

Prevention and Public Health Fund

305.7001 Scope.

305.7002 Applicability.

305.7003 Publicizing preaward.

305.7004 Publicizing postaward.

PART 306 - COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

Subpart 306.2 - Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources

306.202 Establishing or maintaining alternative sources.

Subpart 306.3 - Other Than Full and Open Competition

306.302 Circumstances permitting other than full and open competition.

306.302-1 Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will

satisfy agency requirements. See FAR 6.302-1.

Subpart 306.5 - Competition Advocates

306.501 Requirement.

PART 307 - ACQUISITION PLANNING

307.105 Contents of written acquisition plans.

PART 308 - REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES

Subpart 308.4 - Federal Supply Schedules

308.405-6 Limited source justification and approval.

Subpart 308.8 - Acquisition of Printing and Related Supplies

308.800 Scope of subpart.

308.801 Definitions.

308.802 Policy.

308.803 Solicitation provision and contract clause.

PART 309 - CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS

Subpart 309.4 - Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility

309.403 Definitions.

309.404 System for Award Management (SAM) exclusions.

309.405 Effect of listing (compelling reason determinations).

309.406 Debarment.
309.406-3 Procedures.

309.407 Suspension.

309.407-3 Procedures.

309.470 Reporting of suspected causes for debarment or suspension or the taking

of evasive actions.

309.470-1 Situations where reports are required.

PART 310 - MARKET RESEARCH

310.001 Policy.

PART 311 - DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS

Subpart 311.70 - Section 508 Accessibility Standards

311.7000 Defining electronic and information technology requirements.

Subpart 311.71 - Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities.

311.7100 Policy.

311.7101 Responsibilities.

311.7102 Contract clause.

Subpart 311.72 - Conference Funding and Sponsorship

311.7200 Policy.

311.7201 Funding and sponsorship.

311.7202 Contract clause.

Subpart 311.73 - Contractor Collection of Information

311.7300 Policy.

311.7301 Contract clause.

PART 312 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

Subpart 312.1 - Acquisition of Commercial Items - General

312.101 Policy.

Subpart 312.2 - Special Requirements for the Acquisition of Commercial Items

312.202(d) Market research and description of agency need.
924.103 Procedures.

(b)(2) The Department of Energy rules and regulations on Privacy Act are implemented under 10

CFR part 1008.

Parent topic: Subpart 924.1 - Protection of Individual Privacy
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 NORTHERN DIVISION

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN )

INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:2:06cv717-1D

)

CAROL THORN; et al. )

)

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW Evan P. Baggett of Bradford & Sears, P.C., and respec tfully requests

this honorable court enter his name as additional counsel for the Progressive American

Insurance Company, in the above-referenc ed case . 

 /s/ Evan P. Baggett 

 Evan P. Baggett, Attorney for Plaintiff,

Progressive American Insurance Company

Federal ID Number: asb-5568-v79b

OF COUNSEL:

Bradford & Sears, P.C.

2020 Canyon Road

Suite 100

Birmingham, AL 35216

(205) 871-7733

ebaggett@bradfordsears.com

Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 98 Filed 12/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this the 12th day of December, 2007, served a copy

of the foregoing to all attorneys of record by placing a copy of same in the United States

Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as follows:

Mathew Richardson, Esq.

Sidney W. Jackson, III , Esq.

Jackson, Foster & Graham

P.O. Box 2225

Mobile, AL 36602

Ronald G. Davenport, Esq.

Rushton, Stakely, Johnston & Garrett, P.A.

P.O. Box 270

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0270

Edgar M. Elliott, IV, Esq.

505 North 20TH Street, Suite 1800

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Jimmie R. Ippolito, Jr., Esq.

1409 Coliseum Boulevard 

Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Greer B. Mallette, Esq.

Christian & Small, LLP 

505 20th Street North 

1800 Financial Center 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2695 

 /s/ Evan P. Baggett 

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 98 Filed 12/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78227-78228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31520]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA085


Endangered Species; File No. 14400

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Channel Islands National Park, 
1901 Spinnaker Drive, Ventura, CA 93001 [Responsible Party: Daniel 
Richards] has been issued a permit to take black abalone for purposes 
of scientific research and enhancement.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:

Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 
20910; phone (301) 713-2289; fax (301) 713-0376; and
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, 
CA 90802-4213; phone (562) 980-4001; fax (562) 980-4018.

[[Page 78228]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Skidmore or Colette Cairns, 
(301) 713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 27, 2009, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (74 FR 43679) that a request for a scientific 
research and enhancement permit to take black abalone (Haliotis 
cracherodii) had been submitted by the above-named organization. The 
requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the 
regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of 
endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).
    This permit authorizes the continued monitoring of black abalone, a 
species listed as endangered on February 13, 2009. The objective of 
this monitoring is to identify population trends through population 
counts and size distribution measurements. Monitoring would consist of 
only non-lethal take to measure abalone, and at selected sites, tag 
some individuals to determine survivorship and growth. This permit is 
valid for five years.
    Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a 
finding that such permit (1) Was applied for in good faith, (2) will 
not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth 
in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: December 9, 2010.
Tammy C. Adams,
Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-31520 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P