alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Hillsborough County Probate Court

No. 79-294

#### Edward C. Ross *& a.*v. Philip A. Carlino

June 25, 1980

*Clancy & O’Neill,*of Nashua *(Frank B. Clancy*orally), for Edward C. Ross, contestant.

*Spaloss & Rosson,*of Nashua, by brief for the Nashua Association for Retarded Children, Inc., contestant.

*Daniel W. O’Shaughnessy,*of Manchester, by brief and orally, for Irene Dove, proponent.

Per CURIAM.

This case was here last year and was returned to the probate court to determine whether a third witness was in fact unavailable and, if not, whether she was a “ ‘credible,’ meaning competent, witness ... as required by RSA 551:2.” *Ross v. Carlino,*119 N.H. 126, 129, 399 A.2d 292, 295 (1979). On remand, the Court *(Copadis,*J.) conducted a hearing and found that the witness was unavailable and was “not a credible witness within the meaning of RSA 551:2.”

However, the court granted proponent’s request #13 that “Blakesley was not incompetent at the time of her attestation.” This presents a seeming inconsistency because the word “credible” within the context of RSA 551:2 means competent. *Ross v. Carlino supra; Eustis v. Parker,*1 N.H. 273, 274 (1818). We were of the opinion that we made this clear when the case was here before.

*490The court granted various requests in which the phrase “credibility or competency” was used. It also made several other requested findings that the witness lacked the requisite mental capacity to attest that the deceased executed the will, that she neither had knowledge of its contents nor possessed the mental capacity to sign. We are satisfied that the probate court understood “credible” to mean “competent” and found that the third witness, Blakesley, did not meet the requirements of RSA 551:2. The granting of request #13 stands alone in the face of these various findings and we are satisfied that it was granted by error or through misunderstanding.

*Appeal dismissed.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 00-40055 Summary Calendar

_____________________ KENNETH A. GONZALES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus O/S VESSEL BRAZOS PILOT; BRAZOS PILOT ASSOCIATION; MAX BLANTON, JOHN GUNNING, Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. G-99-CV-85)

_______________________________________________________ August 9, 2000 Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant did not object to the district court’s order concerning the timing of witness testimony, nor did appellant seek to2

make an offer of proof of additional evidence. No due process error has been preserved for review. The findings of the district judge are supported by ample evidence in the record and are not clearly erroneous. AFFIRMED
#### § 102-75.938 May the easement and the land that benefited from the easement (dominant estate) be disposed of separately?

Yes. If the easement is no longer needed in connection with the dominant estate, it may be disposed of separately to the owner of the servient estate. However, if the dominant estate is also surplus, the easement should be disposed of with the dominant estate.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7196

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY A. BLAGROVE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CR-95-52, CA-96-599)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony A. Blagrove, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony A. Blagrove seeks to appeal the district court's order

denying his first motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994),

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, dismissing his next three

§ 2255 motions and denying his motion for appointment of counsel.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Blagrove, Nos. CR-95-52, CA-96-599

(E.D. Va. July 11, 1996). Blagrove's motion for appointment of

counsel is also denied. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE 

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498 

 OFFICE OF 

 AIR AND RADIATION 

April 26, 2012 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Meeting with Sierra Club and others to discuss the EPA/NHTSA Proposed 

Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas and CAFE Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles 

FROM: Gloria Helfand 

 Environmental Protection Specialist 

 Assessment and Standards Division 

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799 

This memo documents a meeting held on April 26, 2012, between representatives of the Sierra 

Club, people from affiliated organizations, and EPA to discuss economic impact analyses in 

EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles. The discussion 

topics were the impacts of the rule on the costs of new vehicles and the market for new vehicle 

sales. 

The meeting attendees included the following: 

Jesse Prentice-Dunn, Sierra Club 

James Kliesch, Union of Concerned Scientists 

Luke Tonachel, Natural Resources Defense Council 

Ann Mesnikoff, Sierra Club 

Jeff Alson, EPA 

Robin Moran, EPA 

Gloria Helfand, EPA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

Case No. 0:22-cv-62219-WPD

JAMIL HINDI, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, 

v.

MODANI FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC,

Defendant. 

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff Jamil Hindi and Defendant Modani Fort Lauderdale, LLC notify the Court that 

they have resolved this matter on an individual, non-class basis. See L.R. 16.4. The parties 

are now in the process of finalizing the terms of the settlement and memorializing the same. 

They accordingly request that the Court vacate all pending deadlines and allow the parties sixty 

(60) days to file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted this 12th day of January 2023.

KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP

/s/ Matthew A. Keilson

Ryan D. Watstein (Fla. Bar No. 93945)

Matthew A. Keilson (Fla. Bar No. 1002294)

171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550

Atlanta, Georgia 30363

Tel: (404) 400-7300

Fax: (404) 400-7333

rwatstein@kcozlaw.com

mkeilson@kcozlaw.com

Counsel Defendant 

and

HIRALDO P.A.

/s/ Manuel S. Hiraldo

Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 030380

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2023 Page 1 of 3
2

401 E. Las Olas Boulevard

Suite 1400

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

Telephone: 954.400.4713

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2023 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that today, I filed a copy of the foregoing with the Clerk of Court 

via the Court’s electronic filing system, which will send notice of electronic filing to all counsel 

of record. 

/s/ Matthew A. Keilson

Matthew A. Keilson

Fla. Bar No. 1002294

Case 0:22-cv-62219-WPD Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2023 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 560 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.560

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at the intersection of Comercio and San Justo Streets, in San Juan, 
Puerto Rico, as the ``Jose V. Toledo Federal Building and United States 
                              Courthouse''.

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at the 
intersection of Comercio and San Justo Streets, in San Juan, Puerto 
Rico, shall be known and designated as the ``Jose V. Toledo Federal 
Building and United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in any law, map, regulation, document, paper, or 
other record of the United States to the Federal building and United 
States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Jose V. Toledo Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
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

AZBILEG SHURA; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70030

 10-73768

Agency Nos. A098-838-000

 A098-838-001

 A098-838-002

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated cases, Azbileg Shura and his family, natives and

citizens of Mongolia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision

denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

FILED

APR 26 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
09-70030

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and of the BIA’s order denying their motion

to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse

credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590

F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for review in No. 09-70030

and remand, and we dismiss the petition for review in No. 10-73768. 

There is no inconsistency between Shura’s documentary evidence and his

testimony with respect to the year that the Healthy Society Citizen’s Movement

started. See Morgan v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2008) (no

inconsistency between application and testimony). In addition, the discrepancy

regarding the date which Shura became Secretary of the Healthy Society Citizen’s

Movement is a trivial inconsistency that has no bearing on Shura’s credibility. See

Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 2011) (“minor discrepancies in

dates that...cannot be viewed as attempts by the applicant to enhance his claims of

persecution have no bearing on credibility”). Finally, considering the “totality of

the circumstances,” the last inconsistency the IJ cited appears to be an “innocent

mistake.” See id. at 1087. Therefore, substantial evidence does not support the

agency’s adverse credibility finding. See id. at 1089. Accordingly, we remand

Shura’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims, on an open record, for
09-70030

further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder,

555 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2009); INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)

(per curiam).

In light of our above conclusion, we dismiss as moot Shura’s challenge to

the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. 

No. 09-70030: PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

No. 10-73768: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of Wyeth (the "Company") on Form 10-Q
for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 15, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Robert Essner, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  May 15, 2003

                                     By /s/ Robert Essner
                                        -----------------------
                                            Robert Essner
                           Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.19 Use of metric units required.

Where parenthesized English units accompany metric units throughout this chapter, and the two figures are not precisely equivalent, the metric unit shall be considered the sole requirement; except, however, that the use of metric paper sizes is not currently required, and compliance with the English unit shall be considered sufficient when the Commission form requests that data showing compliance with that particular standard be submitted in English units.

[58 FR 44893, Aug. 25, 1993]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR ARTISTIC GREETINGS INCORPORATED FOR ITS QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000007610
<NAME> ARTISTIC GREETINGS INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             896
<SECURITIES>                                     2,781
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,798
<ALLOWANCES>                                        52
<INVENTORY>                                      3,023
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,988
<PP&E>                                          14,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,863
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,316
<BONDS>                                          1,998<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           604
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,273
<SALES>                                         72,901
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,901
<CGS>                                           29,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,968
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,699
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,699
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,699
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
<FN>
<F1>Long-term debt.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### § 302-3.100 What is a transferred employee?

A transferred employee is an employee who transfers from one official station to another. This may also include employees separated as a result of reduction in force or transfer of functions who are re-employed within one year after such separation.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO

. 09

- 1 8

- 00 257

- C V



### ____________________
IN THE INTEREST OF M.D.B.

________________________________________ _______________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 317th Di strict Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No

. C

- 227,217

- A

________________________________________ ________________ _____________ ORDER
On July 2, 2018, a ppellant, Michael David Bellow Jr. , filed a notice of appeal

from the trial court’s j udgment signed on April 3, 2018. On August 2, 2018, the trial
court clerk notified the Court that no payment arrangements had been made for
preparation of the clerk’s record. O n August 3 , 201 8
, a ppellant filed a statement of
inability to afford payment of court costs. We abate this appeal and remand the cause

to the trial court for a determination of the appellant’s ability to afford payment of

court costs under Rule 145 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tex. R. Civ.

P. 145.
Any motion to require a ppellant to pay costs or to require a ppellant to prove2

h is inability to afford costs must be filed in the trial court by the appropriate party in

accordance with Rule 145. See id . R. 145(f)(1)

- (4). If necessary, the trial court shall
conduct a hearing and make appropriate orders. See id . R. 145(f)(5)

- (7). Any
documents filed and orders signed pursuant to Rule 145 shall be forwarded to this
Court for filing as a supplemental record no later than August 28, 2018

. Alternatively, a party, the trial court clerk, or the court reporter may file a status
report informing this Court that additional time is needed for a determination under

Rule 145. In the absence of a request for additional time, this appeal will
automatically reinstate on August 28, 2018 . Upon reinstatement, if an order
requiring appellant to pay costs has not been signed, a ppellant will be entitled to
proceed without payment of costs associated with this appeal. See id . R. 145(a).
ORDER ENTERED August 8, 2018

.

PER CURIAM
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
§ 102-74.415 What is the policy for posting and distributing materials? All persons entering in or on Federal property are prohibited from— ( a ) Distributing free samples of tobacco products in or around Federal buildings, as mandated by Section 636 of Public Law 104-52;
( b ) Posting or affixing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills, or flyers, on bulletin boards or elsewhere on GSA-controlled property, except as authorized in § 102-74.410, or when these displays are conducted as part of authorized Government activities; and
( c ) Distributing materials, such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless conducted as part of authorized Government activities. This prohibition does not apply to public areas of the property as defined in § 102-71.20 of this chapter. However, any person or organization proposing to distribute materials in a public area under this section must first obtain a permit from the building manager as specified in subpart D of this part. Any such person or organization must distribute materials only in accordance with the provisions of subpart D of this part. Failure to comply with those provisions is a violation of these regulations.
#### Rita P. Youngs, Respondent-Appellant, v Kissing Bridge Ski Corporation et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[628 NYS2d 925]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff failed to obtain leave pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) and 1003 to serve an "amended summons and complaint” purporting to join New York Sportservice, Inc. (Sportservice) as a party defendant. The failure to obtain leave of court constitutes a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the action against Sportservice *(see, Crook v du Pont de Nemours Co.*[appeal No. 2], 181 AD2d 1039, *affd*81 NY2d 807; *Yonker v Amol Motorcycles,*161 AD2d 638; Alexander, 1994 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C305:2,1995 Pocket Part, at 48; Alexander, Supp Practice Commentaries, CPLR C1003:l, 1995 Pocket Part, at 184). Because Sportservice properly preserved its affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction in its answer and did not engage in any conduct sufficient to constitute a waiver of its right to object to the improper joinder, Supreme Court properly dismissed the action against it *(see, Crook v du Pont de Nemours Co., supra; Yonker v Amol Motorcycles, supra).*

The court properly denied the motion of defendants Kissing Bridge Ski Corporation (Kissing Bridge) and Delaware North Companies, Inc. (Delaware North) for summary judgment. Defendants failed to submit evidentiary proof in admissible form establishing either that Kissing Bridge did not retain sufficient control over the leased premises to render it liable for plaintiff’s injuries *(see, Worth Distribs. v Latham,*59 NY2d 231, 237-238; *Putnam v Stout,*38 NY2d 607; *cf., Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp.,*190 AD2d 838, 839) or that Delaware North may not be liable for the acts of Sportservice, its subsidiary *(see, Dempsey v Intercontinental Hotel Corp.,*126 AD2d 477). The court also properly determined that plaintiff is entitled to obtain disclosure of evidence establishing the relationship between Delaware North and Sportservice *(see, Dempsey v Intercontinental Hotel Corp., supra).*(Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
#### § 962.18 Post-hearing briefs.

Post-hearing briefs and reply briefs may be submitted upon such terms as established by the Presiding Officer at the conclusion of the hearing.
V

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4336

For the relief of Mary J. Woodard.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 3, 1994

Mr. ROSE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Mary J. Woodard.

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

3 That, for the purposes of applying subchapter III of chap4 ter 83 of title 5, United States Code, with respect to Mary

5 J. Woodard of Fayetteville, North Carolina, service per6 formed by Mary J. Woodard as an employee of the Central

7 Post fund at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, shall be deemed

8 to be service creditable under paragraph (16) of section

9 8332(b) of such title.

Æ
No. 10-1365.

#### Ioannides *v.*University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.