alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Livingston Associates, Respondent, v State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 219]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated May 4, 1993, which remitted the matter to the District Rent Administrator for further proceedings, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutner, J.), dated January 31,1994, which granted the petition and vacated the determination.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the determination is reinstated, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petitioner is the owner of a certain apartment building located in Brooklyn. In April 1967, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR) issued a decontrol order for apartment 1 of the building based on owner *505occupancy. In September 1989, after an administrative proceeding to review the rent status of the apartment in question, the DHCR’s District Rent Administrator (hereinafter the DRA) determined that (1) the apartment was not subject to Rent Control based on the 1967 decontrol order, and (2) the premises was not a horizontal multiple dwelling and therefore not subject to the Rent Stabilization Code.

In a determination dated May *4,*1993, rendered upon the tenant’s petition for administrative review (hereinafter the PAR), the DHCR found some evidence that (1) the 1967 decontrol order was obtained by fraud, and (2) the premises was a horizontal multiple dwelling. The DHCR therefore granted the PAR to the extent of remitting the matter to the DRA for further proceedings to determine whether the 1967 decontrol order was obtained by fraud and, if not, whether the premises was a horizontal multiple dwelling subject to the Rent Stabilization Code *(see,*9 NYCRR parts 2520-2530). The Supreme Court granted the owner’s petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 and vacated the DHCR’s determination to remit the matter to the DRA.

We agree with the DHCR, however, that its determination of May 4, 1993, did not conclude the proceedings or finally determine the parties’ rights. Absent a final administrative determination, judicial review is unavailable *(see,*CPLR 7801 [1]; *Matter of Plaza Realty Investors v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*173 AD2d 290; *Matter of 140 W. 57th St. Corp. v State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*130 AD2d 237, 245). The Supreme Court therefore erred in granting the owner’s petition to vacate the determination.

In light of our determination, we need not address the DH-CR’s remaining contentions. Thompson, J. P., Copertino, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 217/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 217 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 498 September 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 217

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 498 September 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 217/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 217/2 | Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the antidumping measures applicable to imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China | 2 |
| 2006/C 217/3 | Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1.7.2006 to 31.7.2006 (Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 5 |
| 2006/C 217/4 | Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1.7.2006 to 31.7.2006(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/ECor Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 13 |
| 2006/C 217/5 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 36 |
| 2006/C 217/6 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4386 — Cinven Limited/Aero Invest) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 37 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 217/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 217/2

Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the antidumping measures applicable to imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China

2

2006/C 217/3

Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1.7.2006 to 31.7.2006 (Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

5

2006/C 217/4

Summary of Community decisions on marketing authorizations in respect of medicinal products from 1.7.2006 to 31.7.2006(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/ECor Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

13

2006/C 217/5

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

36

2006/C 217/6

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4386 — Cinven Limited/Aero Invest) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

37

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

GARY F. ROBINSON,

 Petitioner,

v.

KEN QUINN,

Respondent. 

Case No. C06-5217 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Petitioner’s Motion for a Certificate

of Appealability [Dkt. #28].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. #20], this Court declines to issue a

certificate of appealability because petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 14th day of December, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05217-RBL Document 31 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 1
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 165

Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is

assembled.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 27, 1998

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of

the Senate is assembled.

1 Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of

2 Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled

3 and that the Senate is ready to proceed to business.

Æ
---

Exhibit 32



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of PLATINUM RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, INC., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, [to such officer's knowledge],
that:

The Form 10-KSB for the nine month period ended December 31, 2006(the
"Form 10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|Dated: March 23, 2007 | /s/ Cecelia Pineda
  ___________________________________
|--------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------
|                      | Cecelia Pineda, Chief Executive Officer                 
|Dated: March 23, 2007 | /s/ Cecelia Pineda
  ___________________________________
|                      | Cecelia Pineda, Chief Financial Officer                 



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit 32.1



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 this Form 10-K report of Recon Technology,
Ltd for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof and pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Yin Shenping, certify that:



(1)	This report containing the financial statements 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 this period report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Recon Technology, Ltd.





|Date: September 28, 2012 | /s/ Yin Shenping                                     
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------
|                         | Yin Shenping                                         
|                         | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fritzgerald Bazelias, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 25]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered March 9, 1994, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Approximately one month after having his apartment burglarized, the complainant saw the defendant in front of his building, told his cousin that this was the burglar, and then telephoned 911, while his cousin followed the defendant. Shortly after, the defendant was detained by police officers and the complainant identified him while the defendant stood on the street, neither handcuffed nor restrained by the police officers who stood near him.

The defendant contends that the hearing court erred in not suppressing the showup identification, which took place one month after the crime and was conducted in an unduly suggestive manner. We disagree. Since the complainant had spontaneously recognized the defendant shortly before as the robber, the showup was merely confirmatory *(see, People v Martindale,*202 AD2d 158; *People v Cascoigne,*189 AD2d 714). Furthermore, not only was the showup preceded by an independent identification made under non-suggestive circumstances, but there was evidence that the complainant knew the defendant from having seen him in and in front of his building before the burglary *(see, People v Cascoigne, supra).*

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 8.1**

 

**Youku Tudou Inc.**

**List of Significant Consolidated Entities**

 

**Significant Subsidiaries**

 

1Verge Internet Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., a PRC company

Jet Brilliant Limited, a Hong Kong company

Beiijng Jet Brilliant Advertising Co., Ltd., a PRC company

Youku Video (Xi’an) Media Technology Co., Ltd., a PRC company

Trade Lead Investments Ltd., a British Virgin Islands company

Tudou Holdings Limited, a Cayman Islands company

StarCloud Media Co., Limited, a British Virgin Islands company

Reshuffle Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., a PRC company

Chuanxian Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., a PRC company

** **

**Significant Consolidated Affiliated Entities**

 

1Verge Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., a PRC company

Zhejiang Dongyang Tianshi Media Ltd., a PRC company

Quan Toodou Network Science and Technology Co., Ltd., a PRC company

Shanghai Quan Toodou Cultural Communication Co., Ltd., a PRC company

 

* Other consolidated entities of Youku Tudou Inc. have been omitted from this list since, considered in the aggregate as a single entity, they would not constitute a significant subsidiary.

 

----
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 15-1520 JOHN FANNING, Petitioner,
v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.

**ERRATA SHEET** The opinion of this Court issued on May 9, 2016, is amended as follows: On page 3, line 17, "profiles" is replaced with "profile" On page 5, line 12, "inference" is replaced with "inferences" On page 9, line 13, "profiles" is replaced with "profile"
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

SIMON WILLIAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COWLITZ COUNTY JAIL, et al,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5288RBL-KLS

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DIRECTING INSTITUTION TO

CALCULATE, COLLECT, AND

FORWARD PAYMENTS

The Court, having reviewed plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, does hereby find

and ORDER. 

Plaintiff’s declaration indicates he is unable to afford the court’s filing fee or give security therefor. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper is GRANTED. As set forth below, an initial

partial filing fee will be collected, and plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of 20 percent

of the preceding months income credited to his/her account until the full amount of the filing fee is

satisfied.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and plaintiff’s approved application to proceed in forma pauperis,

the agency having custody of the above named plaintiff is directed to calculate an initial partial filing fee

equal to 20 percent of greater of -- the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s account or the average

monthly balance in the prisoner’s account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the date of this

Order. The initial partial filing fee should be forwarded to the court clerk as soon as practicable.

Subsequently, if the prisoner’s account exceeds $10.00, each month the agency is directed to

collect and forward payments equal to 20 percent of the prisoner’s preceding month’s income credited to

Case 3:06-cv-05288-RBL Document 21 Filed 08/24/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 2

the prisoner’s account. In the event that the monthly payment would reduce the prisoner’s account below

$10.00, the agency should collect and forward only that amount which would reduce the prisoner’s

account to the $10.00 level. Please note that this $10.00 limit does not apply to the initial partial filing fee

described above. Finally, the monthly payments should be collected and forwarded to the court until the

entire filing fee ($350.00) for this matter has been paid. 

The Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of this Order and the General Order, and a copy of

this Order along with a copy of plaintiff’s Acknowledgement and Authorization portion of the IFP

application to the attention of the inmate account manager (IFP account manager at the Department of

Corrections).

DATED this 24th day of August, 2006. 

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05288-RBL Document 21 Filed 08/24/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Focus Media Holding Limited (the Company) on Form
20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kit Leong Low, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 27, 2012



By:

/s/ Kit Leong LowName:

Kit Leong LowTitle:

Chief Financial Officer




|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67771-67772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21642]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; ME/CFS Centers Without Walls.
    Date: November 2-3, 2023.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Canopy by Hilton, 940 Rose Avenue, North Bethesda, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: W. Ernest Lyons, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, NSC, 6001 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 301-496-4056, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fe928791908d9bbe9097909a8dd0909796d0999188"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f736670716c7a5f7176717b6c3171767731787069">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Clinical Trials and Biomarker 
Studies in Stroke.
    Date: November 17, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Nilkantha Sen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NINDS/
NIH/DHHS, NSC, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-
496-9223, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aec0c7c2c5cfc0dac6cf80ddcbc0eec0c7c680c9c1d8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9a7a0a5a2a8a7bda1a8e7baaca789a7a0a1e7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the

[[Page 67772]]

Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS.)

    Dated: September 26, 2023.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-21642 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
SM Energy /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 1, 2013

N o. 04

- 12

- 00772

- CV

W.H. SUTTON, Arctic Royalty Limited Partnership, Julie S. Mueller, Janet Lee Smith as

Trustee of the Janet Lee Smith Family Trust, Anita Louise Davies as Trustee of the Anita Louise

Davies Family Trust and Frederick Jackson Bell Jr., et al.

,

Appellant s

v.

SM ENERGY COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb Coun ty, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CVQ001903 D3

Honorable Elma T. Salinas Ender, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant's first unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply brief is hereby

GRANTED. Appellant's reply brief is due on or before July 26, 2013.

_________________________________ Marialyn Ba rnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of July, 2013

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hott le

Clerk of Court
Lucky Break Wishbone Corporation v. Sears Roebuck and Co et al Doc. 1

Dockets.Justia.com
No. 59806.

#### Dmitrovsky Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 941943-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

It was stipulated that the items marked “A” consist of kidskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Rung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) and that the items marked “B” consist of lambskin plates similar to those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643). Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact and following the cited decisions, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in C. D. 1480 and C. D. 1643, *supra.*