alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 11/21/16 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2016 ND 216

Gary Stibbe, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.

Leann Haven and/or David Haven and/or 

Micah Haven or Jenna Lee Haven, and/or 

Yvonne and/or Thomas Halstenson and/or 

Jon Halstenson and/or Erica Johnson or 

Jessie L. Johnson, and/or Darla J.S. Wallace 

and/or Lloyd Wallace, Defendants and Appellees

No. 20150339

Appeals from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Susan Lynne Bailey, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Gary Stibbe, self-represented, General Delivery, Desert Center, California 92239, plaintiff and appellant; on brief.

C. Nicholas Vogel, 218 NP Avenue, P.O. Box 1389, Fargo, N.D. 58107-1389, for defendants and appellees; on brief.

Stibbe v. Haven

No. 20150339

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Gary Stibbe appeals from a district court order dismissing his claims with prejudice.  Stibbe argues the signature on his father’s will is forged.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).

[¶2]Stibbe also appeals from a district court order enjoining him from filing or serving in North Dakota any complaint, motion, or legal process against any person or entity in this state without first either (1) obtaining prior approval from an active North Dakota judge to bring such action or (2) obtaining the services of a practicing North Dakota attorney who is subject to the Rules of Professional Responsibility to handle the legal proceedings on behalf of Stibbe.  We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion.  Lang v. Binstock, 2001 ND App 1, ¶ 5, 622 N.W.2d 241; Holkesvig v. Welte, 2012 ND 142, ¶ 6, 818 N.W.2d 760.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶3]Stibbe may not file or serve in North Dakota any complaint, motion, or legal process against any person or entity in this state without first either (1) obtaining prior approval from an active North Dakota judge to bring such action or (2) obtaining the services of a practicing North Dakota attorney who is subject to the Rules of Professional Responsibility to handle the legal proceedings on behalf of Stibbe.  No defendant named in any proceeding brought by or on behalf of Stibbe need respond to any such proceeding until Stibbe first establishes in a court proceeding that he has complied with the requirements of this order.

[¶4]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Thomas E. Merrick, D.J.

[¶5]The Honorable Thomas E. Merrick, D.J., sitting in place of Kapsner, J., disqualified.
#### § 105-68.130 Does exclusion under the Federal procurement system affect a person's eligibility to participate in nonprocurement transactions?

If any Federal agency excludes a person under the FAR on or after August 25, 1995, the excluded person is also ineligible to participate in nonprocurement covered transactions under this part. Therefore, an exclusion under the FAR has reciprocal effect in Federal nonprocurement transactions.
# Comments on: 2021-1954: Procon Analytics, LLC v. Spireon, Inc.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #3263]
 Cheatham County and the contiguous counties of Davidson, Dickson, Montgomery, Robertson, and Williamson in the State of Tennessee constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, and heavy rains that occurred May 23-31, 2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on August 11, 2000 and for economic injury until the close of business on March 12, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308. The interest rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*HOMEOWNERS WITH CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE
7.375HOMEOWNERS WITHOUT CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE
3.687BUSINESSES WITH CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE
8.000BUSINESSES AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WITHOUT CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE
4.000OTHERS (INCLUDING NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS) WITH CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE
6.750*For Economic Injury:*BUSINESSES AND SMALL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES WITHOUT CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE D4.000%
 The numbers assigned to this disaster are 326306 for physical damage and 9H5300 for economic injury. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) Dated: June 12, 2000. Aida Alvarez, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 00-15422 Filed 6-16-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-112239, 333-115077, 333-117946, 333-126893, and 333-131000 and Form S-8 Nos. 333-36020, 333-108314, and 333-117945) of Corautus Genetics Inc. of our report dated February 24, 2006, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Corautus Genetics Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 20, 2006
#### § 102-72.15 What criteria must a delegation meet?

Delegations must be in the Government's best interest, which means that GSA must evaluate such factors as whether a delegation would be cost effective for the Government in the delivery of space.
---

---

Exhibit 10.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Registration Nos. 333-06784, 333-08146, 333-11842, 333-09350, 333-11154, 333-111112,
333-111113, 333-134355, 333-144589, 333-145981 and 333-153230) of our reports dated April
5, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of NICE-Systems Ltd. and
subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of
NICE-Systems Ltd. and subsidiaries included in theAnnual Report (Form 20-F) for
the year ended December 31, 2008.

Tel Aviv, Israel
April 5, 2009

| |                                   
| | ----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
| | /s/ KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERER
| | KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERER    
| | A Member of Ernst & Young Global  



---

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin L. Coffin, Appellant.

[629 NYS2d 343]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the testimony of police investigators bolstered the credibility of prosecution witnesses who testified that they were present when defendant fatally stabbed the victims *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Matusak,*206 AD2d 903, *lv denied*84 NY2d 908; *People v Marks,*182 AD2d 1122). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; *People v Matusak, supra,*at 903; *People v Valverde,*197 AD2d 920, *lv denied*82 NY2d 854).

Supreme Court did not err in admitting into evidence either the blood samples from the victims *(see, People v Moyer,*186 AD2d 997, *lv denied*81 NY2d 844; *see also, People v Julian,*41 NY2d 340, 342-343) or the testimony of a court security deputy regarding a knife that defendant possessed the day before the fatal stabbings. Moreover, even assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in admitting that evidence, any error is harmless because the proof of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and there is no significant probability that, but for that error, the jury would have acquitted defendant *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present— Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23753

EDWIN GARRISON, et al. on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Howard M. Bushman of The Moskowitz Law Firm PLLC, 

hereby gives notice of appearance as co-counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel respectfully requests that 

all orders, pleadings, and correspondence be served at the address below.

Respectfully submitted this 9th day of March 2023.

 By: /s/ Howard M. Bushman

Howard M. Bushman 

Florida Bar No. 0364230

howard@moskowitz-law.com

Adam M. Moskowitz

Florida Bar No. 984280

adam@moskowitz-law.com 

Joseph M. Kaye

Florida Bar No. 117520

joseph@moskowitz-law.com

Barbara C. Lewis

Florida Bar No. 118114

barbara@moskowitz-law.com 

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC

2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Telephone: (305) 740-1423

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing was filed on March 9, 2023, 

with the Court via CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of 

record. 

 By: /s/ Howard M. Bushman

Howard M. Bushman 

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM   Document 172-26   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2024   Page 1 of 1
#### § 109-40.5000 Scope of subpart.

This subpart sets forth the requirements under which commercial or Government bills of lading may be used.
#### § 301-71.106 Who must sign a trip-by-trip authorization?

The appropriate official is determined as follows:

| For | The appropriate official to sign a trip-by-trip authorization is |
| --- | --- |
| Use of cash to procure common carrier transportation | An official at as low an administrative level as permitted by 41 CFR 101-203.2 to ensure adequate consideration and review of the circumstances. |
| Travel on a Government aircraft | Determined under 41 CFR 101-37.405. |
| Acceptance of payment from a non-Federal source for travel expenses | An official at as low an administrative level as permitted by 41 CFR Chapter 304 to ensure adequate consideration and review of the circumstances surrounding the offer and acceptance of the payment. |
| Travel expenses related to attendance at a conference | A senior agency official. |
| All other specific authorizations | An official who may issue the employee a general authorization. |

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15974, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2007-05, 72 FR 61539, Oct. 31, 2007]
§ 102-5.20 Who is not covered by this part? This part does not cover: ( a ) Employees who use a passenger carrier in conjunction with official travel, including temporary duty (TDY) or relocation;
( b ) Employees who are essential for the safe and efficient performance of intelligence, counterintelligence, protective services, or criminal law enforcement duties when designated in writing as such by their agency head; or
( c ) Employees who use a passenger carrier for transportation between places of employment and mass transit facilities (*see, e.g.,* 41 CFR 102-34.210).
[65 FR 54966, Sept. 12, 2000, as amended at 75 FR 41995, July 20, 2010]
207PA14-2

#### State v. Curtis Mario Benton

1. Def’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA13-1204-2)

1.—

2. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Denied

3. State’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Allowed
No. 10-10973.

#### Ayala-Esquer *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


January 24, 2017


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 293


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on January 23, 2017, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms
and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing
the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-214667) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                   


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
## NO. 12-08-00493-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S
RICH ARD WADE MAT

HEW S, § APP EAL FRO

M T HE 1 73 RD APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX

AS, APP ELL EE § HEN DE RSON C OU

NT Y, TEX

AS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM Appellant ente red a

guilty plea to the of

fense of burglary of a ha

bitation and was plac ed on community supervision for five ye ars. The trial court c ertified tha t this is a plea barga in case and that Appellant has no right of appe al. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)( 2). The c ertification is si gned by Ap pe lla nt a nd his tr ia l c ou ns e l. A pp e lla nt s ub se qu e ntl y s ou gh t th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s pe rm iss ion to a pp e a l, wh i ch was de nied on Janua ry 12, 2009. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 5
. 2 ( B )
. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e a pp e a l is dismiss ed for want of juri sdiction
. Opinion delivere d January 14, 2009. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBLISH)
No. 10-10946.

#### Herrera-Genao *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31.2 

  **CERTIFICATION**

I, Tate Fite, Chief Financial Officer of Moscow CableCom Corp., certify that: 

1. 

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Moscow CableCom Corp.; 

2. 

Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 

3. 

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report; 

4. 

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

a)       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared; 

b)       Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c)       Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and; 

5. 

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

a)       All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 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 over financial reporting. 

Date:  October 24, 2006
#### § 105-68.605 How does suspension differ from debarment?

Suspension differs from debarment in that—

| A suspending official . . . | A debarring official . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (a) Imposes suspension as a temporary status of ineligibility for procurement and nonprocurement transactions, pending completion of an investigation or legal proceedings | Imposes debarment for a specified period as a final determination that a person is not presently responsible. |
| (b) Must— (1) Have *adequate evidence* that there may be a cause for debarment of a person; and (2) Conclude that *immediate action* is necessary to protect the Federal interest | Must conclude, based on a *preponderance of the evidence,* that the person has engaged in conduct that warrants debarment. |
| (c) Usually imposes the suspension *first,* and then promptly notifies the suspended person, giving the person an opportunity to contest the suspension and have it lifted | Imposes debarment *after* giving the respondent notice of the action and an opportunity to contest the proposed debarment. |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00803-CV

Kelly Clark Lewis, Appellant

v.

Gordon Joseph Lewis, Appellee

FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY 

NO. D-1-FM-19-000502, THE HONORABLE CATHERINE MAUZY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was originally due on January 21, 2020. On March 3, 2020, this 

Court sent a notice to appellant informing her that her brief was overdue and that a failure to file 

a satisfactory response by March 13, 2020, would result in the dismissal of this appeal for want 

of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: March 31, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         764,382
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 23,837,273
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       8,363,863
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,769,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,020,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     13,451,113
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,569
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,920,988
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,020,696
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,460,583
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,600,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,138,878
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             514,353
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                206,973
<INCOME-TAX>                                   108,510
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             98,463
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    98,463
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 105-69.200 Agency and legislative liaison. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 105-69.100 (a), does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement if the payment is for agency and legislative liaison activities not directly related to a covered Federal action.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, providing any information specifically requested by an agency or Congress is allowable at any time.
( c ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the following agency and legislative liaison activities are allowable at any time only where they are not related to a specific solicitation for any covered Federal action: ( 1 ) Discussing with an agency (including individual demonstrations) the qualities and characteristics of the person's products or services, conditions or terms of sale, and service capabilities; and,
( 2 ) Technical discussions and other activities regarding the application or adaptation of the person's products or services for an agency's use.
( d ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the following agencies and legislative liaison activities are allowable only where they are prior to formal solicitation of any covered Federal action: ( 1 ) Providing any information not specifically requested but necessary for an agency to make an informed decision about initiation of a covered Federal action;
( 2 ) Technical discussions regarding the preparation of an unsolicited proposal prior to its official submission; and,
( 3 ) Capability presentations by persons seeking awards from an agency pursuant to the provisions of the Small Business Act, as amended by Public Law 95-507 and other subsequent amendments.
( e ) Only those activities expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



           We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-21735 and No. 33-350293) of KSW,
Inc. of our report dated February 19, 2003, except for Notes 15 and 16 for which
date is March 19, 2004 which appears on page F-3, relating to the consolidated
financial statements which are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Rosen, Seymour, Shapss, Martin & Company


New York, New York
March 19, 2004