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

 Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

884 

CA 16-00208 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

 

PATRICIA J. CURTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 

NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL AND ALM MEDIA 

PROPERTIES, LLC, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

PATRICIA J. CURTO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

BARCLAY DAMON, LLP, BUFFALO (KARIM A. ABDULLA OF COUNSEL), FOR 

DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D=Amico, 

J.), dated March 9, 2015. The order affirmed two orders of the Buffalo 

City Court (Susan M. Eagan, J.) dated November 1, 2012 and November 7, 

2012. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously 

affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action in Buffalo City Court 

(court) alleging, inter alia, defamation based upon an article that 

appeared in defendant New York Law Journal regarding an underlying action 

in federal court that plaintiff commenced against a third party under 

the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In two orders, the 

court denied plaintiff=s motion for a default judgment against defendants 

and granted defendants= motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 

3211 (a) (1) and (7), and County Court affirmed the orders. We affirm. 

Defendants had 30 days in which to answer the complaint (see UCCA 

402 [b]) and, contrary to plaintiff=s contention, that period ended on 

a Sunday and was therefore extended until Athe next succeeding business 

day@ (General Construction Law ' 25-a). Thus, the court properly denied 

plaintiff=s motion seeking a default judgment. The court also properly 

granted defendants= motion to dismiss the complaint because the alleged 

defamatory statements were absolutely privileged under Civil Rights Law 

' 74. It is axiomatic that 

A >newspaper accounts of . . . official proceedings must be accorded some 

degree of liberality= @ (Alf v Buffalo News, Inc., 21 NY3d 988, 990). 

Upon viewing the article as a whole, we conclude that it is a Asubstantially 

accurate@ report of the federal court=s decision (Holy Spirit Assn. for 

Unification of World Christianity v New York Times Co., 49 NY2d 63, 67). 

Although plaintiff contends that she did not owe a debt and that 

defendants= reference to her as a debtor therefore constituted defamation, 
-2- 884 

CA 16-00208 

it is well settled that Athere is >no requirement that the publication 

report the plaintiff=s side of the controversy= @ (Alf, 100 AD3d 1487, 1489, 

affd 21 NY3d 988). Indeed, the focus of the article was on the court=s 

denial of summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that Aa jury 

could conclude from this [record] that Defendant[] violated the FDCPA.@

We have reviewed plaintiff=s remaining contentions and conclude that they 

are without merit. 

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
409P05-3

#### State v. Sebastian X. Moore

Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COAP14-690) •

Dismissed
No. 11-9881.

#### Cole *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
No. 11-9726.

#### Santos *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1349: ALTERWAN, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"o0FINzLHmI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-13-2023-22-1349-alterwan-inc-v-amazoncom-inc-opinion-22-1349-opinion-3-13-2023_2093610\/\">22-1349: ALTERWAN, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-13-2023-22-1349-alterwan-inc-v-amazoncom-inc-opinion-22-1349-opinion-3-13-2023_2093610\/embed\/#?secret=o0FINzLHmI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1349: ALTERWAN, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"o0FINzLHmI\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: ALTERWAN, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1349 Origin: DCT Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
# Cyber Beacon 2020

/ Published Dec. 11, 2020

Cyber Beacon 2020 was a huge success, featuring speakers from across the broader cyber community including "The Dark Tangent" Jeff Moss. See the event page here: https://cic.ndu.edu/cyberbeacon/
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Ketchikan-Misty Fiordsoutfitter and guide management plan [electronic resource] : draft environmentalimpact statement : Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan-Misty Fiords RangerDistrict, Ketchikan, Alaska.**
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.105/2:R 10-MB-710 A | A13.105/2:R 10-MB-710 B

Item Number:0082-A-05 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000826944
 
Volume A | VolumeB
 
May 6, 2020
#### § 27.1424 Agreements between 3.7 GHz Service licensees and C-Band earth station operators.

The PFD limits in § 27.1423 may be modified by the private agreement of licensees of 3.7 GHz Service and entities operating earth stations in the 4000-4200 MHz band or TT&C operations in the 3700-3980 MHz band. A licensee of the 3.7 GHz Service who is a party to such an agreement must maintain a copy of the agreement in its station files and disclose it, upon request, to prospective license assignees, transferees, or spectrum lessees, and to the Commission.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Paul E. Martin, the Interim Co-Chief Financial Officer of CC V Holdings, LLC
and CC V Holdings Finance, Inc. (collectively, the Company) in compliance
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Companys Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission:  
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. /s/ Paul E. MartinPaul E. MartinInterim Co-Chief Financial Officer(Co-Principal Financial Officer)November 12, 2004
#### § 25.278 Additional coordination obligation for non-geostationary and geostationary satellite systems in frequencies allocated to the fixed-satellite service.

Licensees of non-geostationary satellite systems that use frequency bands allocated to the Fixed-Satellite Service for their feeder link operations shall coordinate their operations with licensees of geostationary Fixed-Satellite Service systems licensed by the Commission for operation in the same frequency bands. Licensees of geostationary Fixed-Satellite Service systems in the frequency bands that are licensed to non-geostationary satellite systems for feeder link operations shall coordinate their operations with the licensees of such non-geostationary satellite systems.

[59 FR 53330, Oct. 21, 1994, as amended at 78 FR 8431, Feb. 6, 2013]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,318,259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               34,694,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                   579,175
<INVENTORY>                                    280,356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,383,475
<PP&E>                                      31,023,589
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,753,640
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             145,913,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,366,931
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       247,107
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,306,426
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               145,913,862
<SALES>                                    152,015,861
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           152,015,861
<CGS>                                      107,178,352
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              108,978,352
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            37,640,998
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,800,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,494,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,942,228
<INCOME-TAX>                                   868,921
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,073,307
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,073,307
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
[Civ. No. 15644.

Second Dist., Div. Two.

Feb. 4, 1947.]

#### EDWARD DE MIRJIAN, Appellant v. MORRIS S. LUTINSKT et al., Respondents.

Pearlson & Singer for Appellant.

Mortimer Vogel for Respondents.

WILSON, J.

What purports to be a statement of facts in appellant’s brief does not relate the facts as required by the Rules on Appeal* but is merely a statement

*916of appellant’s contentions, which the court found were not sustained by the evidence. We therefore accept the statement of facts set forth in respondent’s brief, the correctness of which has not been disputed by appellant. Judgment was in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

Appellant agreed to sell Ms service station to respondent for the sum of $2,000, to transfer the lease and to obtain the consent of the lessor to the transfer. Appellant handed the lease to respondent and informed the latter that he should pay the rent to the lessor. The lessor substituted respondent as the lessee, agreed to look to him for the rental, and released appellant from further liability by reason of the lease. Respondent took possession of the service station and arranged with the various governmental authorities to change all' permits into his name. The parties went to the bank where respondent paid appellant $2,000 by certified check and an additional sum of $232 which represented the value of merchandise on hand, and $50 which had been deposited by appellant for the last month’s rental under the lease. There is substantial evidence in the record sustaining the foregoing statement of facts.

Appellant contends that a formal written agreement concerning the sale of the premises was never entered into, and asserts that in the oral negotiations preceding the transfer of the lease and the payment of the money respondent agreed that until August 15, 1946, he would sell gasoline distributed by appellant, and that when the written transfer was made respondent refused to include such agreement as one of the conditions of the sale. This contention is answered by the finding of the court that appellant’s allegation on such issue is untrue. Since the finding is sustained by substantial evidence of the facts above recited the findings of the court and the judgment will not be disturbed. *(Buckhantz*v. *B. G. Hamilton & Co.,*71 Cal.App.2d 777, 779 [163 P.2d 756] and cases cited.)

Judgment affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and McComb, J., concurred.

*

The Rules on Appeal became effective on July 1, 1943. Rule 13 (22 Cal.2d 1, 12) requires that the appellant’s opening brief “shall contain a statement of the case, setting forth concisely, . . . the nature of the action or proceeding and the relief sought, a summary of the material facts, and the judgment or ruling of the superior court.’’
§ 302-14.103 What factors should we consider in determining the amount of a home marketing incentive payment? In determining the amount of a home marketing incentive payment, you should consider the: ( a ) Amount of savings from reduced fee/expenses paid to the relocation services company. The home marketing incentive payment program is intended to reduce your relocation costs. The amount of each home marketing incentive payment you make, therefore, must not exceed the savings you realize from the reduced fee you pay to the relocation services company; and
( b ) Employee's efforts in marketing the residence. The purpose of a home marketing incentive payment program is to encourage a transferred employee who participates in a homesale program to independently and aggressively market the employee's residence and find a bona fide buyer.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12256, Feb. 16, 2024]
#### Alfred W. POWERS, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-7004.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 10, 2004.

Before SCHALL, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

*Judgment*

PER CURIAM.

*This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:*

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
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.
 Federal Communications Commission
 The following item has been deleted from the list of Agenda items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, August 3, 2006, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of Thursday, July 27, 2006. 1
*Wireline Competition*
*Title:*
                             United Power Line Council's Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Classification of Broadband over Power Line Internet Access Service as an Information Service (WC Docket No. 06-10).*Summary:*
                             The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning the classification of broadband over power line Internet access service.
 Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 06-6757 Filed 8-3-06; 12:40 pm] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
# Capitol  Technology University

/ Published Oct. 19, 2023
Third Place, 
Paper Info
#### § 32.1350 Other current assets.

This account shall include the amount of all current assets which are not includable in Accounts 1120 through 1280.

[67 FR 5682, Feb. 6, 2002]
ACCEPTED

06-15-00144-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

12/31/2015 1:34:46 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/31/2015 1:34:46 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             MAR-31-1997   
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                            890,485
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     616,949
<ALLOWANCES>                       10,000
<INVENTORY>                       642,422
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,305,496
<PP&E>                             56,792
<DEPRECIATION>                      4,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  5,130,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,236,585
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                           550
<COMMON>                              389
<OTHER-SE>                      3,892,557
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    5,130,081
<SALES>                         2,289,629
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,289,629
<CGS>                           1,474,609
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,474,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 54,589
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (1,207,610)
<INCOME-TAX>                     (43,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (1,164,610)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1,164,610)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (.32)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6610

ISIAH JAMES, II, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director; JAMES BEAM, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-627-0-13BD) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isiah James, II, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate the court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. James v. Moore , No. CA-97-627-0-13BD (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 26, 2009

Ms. Susan Desmarais Bonnen

Office of the Attorney General of Texas

Post Office Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

Mr. Joe H. Staley Jr.

Law Offices of Joe H. Staley, Jr.

3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 850

Dallas, TX 75205

Ms. Sydney N. Floyd

4518 Belle Glade Dr.

Houston, TX 77018

RE:Case Number:  08-0061

Court of Appeals Number:  05-06-00003-CV

Trial Court Number:  CC-00-02122-D

Style:THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY SIGN ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 08-0061Page 2**
#### Earl W. TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. Albert L. REEVES, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

No. 14314.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1951.

Earl W. Taylor, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner permitted to file "Petition for Mandamus Relief” and affidavit for permission to proceed in forma pauperis, without payment of Clerk’s costs or fees, and “Petition for Mandamus Relief” dismissed.
§ 27.1208 Geographic area licensing. ( a ) All BRS and EBS licenses are geographic area licenses. Blanket licenses cover all mobile and response stations. Pursuant to that geographic area license, incumbent licensees may modify their systems provided the modified system complies with the applicable rules in this chapter. The blanket license covers all fixed stations anywhere within the authorized service area, except a station must be individually licensed if: ( 1 ) International agreements require coordination;
( 2 ) Submission of an Environmental Assessment is required under § 1.1307 of this chapter; and
( 3 ) The station would affect the radio quiet zones under § 1.924 of this chapter.
( b ) Any antenna structure that requires notification to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must be registered with the Commission prior to construction under § 17.4 of this chapter.
[84 FR 57366, Oct. 25, 2019]
No. 11-1216.

#### Tessler *v.*Cuomo, Governor of New York, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.