alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Donald Rubin, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Robert Schwartz et al., Respondents-Appellants.

[632 NYS2d 787]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about July 25, 1994, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order limiting disclosure of tax returns and other financial information, and which denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the action as a sanction for failure to comply with prior discovery orders, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action for damages arising from defendants’ alleged breach of a contract to provide consulting and administrative services, this Court previously found "a reasonable possibility that evidence with respect to [plaintiffs’] mitigation of damages will be relevant at trial” and reversed the IAS Court’s denial of a motion to compel plaintiffs to respond to interrogatories, which included demands for production of tax and other financial information (191 AD2d 171, 172). The instant motion was made after defendants refused to agree to a proposed confidentiality agreement.

The order is appealable as it "affects a substantial right” (CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; see, *e.g., 85th St. Rest. Corp. v Sanders,*194 AD2d 324). Nor was plaintiffs’ motion untimely, since it claimed that matter requested was privileged under CPLR 3101 *(Corriel v Volkswagen of Am.,*127 AD2d 729, 730).

The court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order as they failed to establish that the documents were confidential or privileged *(see, Liga v Long Is. R. R.,*121 AD2d 606, *appeal dismissed*68 NY2d 911), and defendants had, in the previous appeal, addressed the "strong * * * necessity and desirability” for the information sought *(Walter Karl, Inc. v Wood,*161 AD2d 704, 705).

The court also properly refused to dismiss the action as there was no showing that the default was deliberate, contumacious or a wilful disregard of the prior order *(see, Cinelli v Radcliffe,*35 AD2d 829). Nor does plaintiffs’ appeal warrant sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 260 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 260

   Expressing the sense of Congress that the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Administration require ample public comment and a sound 
  scientific basis for its recently proposed regulation on ergonomics.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2000

Mr. Bonilla (for himself, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Miller of Florida, 
Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Istook, Mrs. Northup, Mr. 
 Dickey, Mr. Goss, Mr. Pease, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. 
 Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Green of 
Wisconsin, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Ganske, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. 
    Thornberry, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Combest, and Mrs. Myrick) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
              the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of Congress that the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Administration require ample public comment and a sound 
  scientific basis for its recently proposed regulation on ergonomics.

Whereas Department of Labor rulemakings are a public process where public input 
        plays a vital role;
Whereas adequate time must be provided for concerned parties to thoroughly 
        review the proposed Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
        regulations;
Whereas 100 days is a short period for review of the proposed ergonomics 
        regulation which, together with its comments, totals more than 1,200 
        pages;
Whereas the proposed regulation on ergonomics will initially affect over 
        27,000,000 American workers;
Whereas Congress supports proposals based on sound science that protect American 
        workers and jobs; and
Whereas small business is the driving force behind American job creation and 
        economic growth: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) Congress should support Federal regulations which are 
        based solely on sound science and fact;
            (2) public comments should play a vital role in shaping the 
        Occupational Safety and Health Administration's proposed 
        regulation on ergonomics; and
            (3) adequate time must be provided for the public to 
        thoroughly review a regulation of the magnitude and length of 
        such proposed regulation on ergonomics.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 327 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 327

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Honoring the service and sacrifice during periods of war by members of 
                   the United States merchant marine.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 327

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas throughout the history of the United States, the United States merchant 
        marine has served the Nation during periods of war;
Whereas vessels of the United States merchant marine fleet, such as the S.S. 
        LANE VICTORY, provided critical logistical support to the Armed Forces 
        by carrying equipment, supplies, and personnel necessary to maintain war 
        efforts;
Whereas numerous members of the United States merchant marine have died to 
        secure peace and freedom; and
Whereas at a time when the people of the United States are recognizing the 
        contributions of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel to the national 
        security, it is appropriate to recognize the service of the United 
        States merchant marine: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) honors the service and sacrifice during periods of war 
        by members of the United States merchant marine;
            (2) recognizes the critical role played by vessels of the 
        United States merchant marine fleet, such as the S.S. LANE 
        VICTORY, in transporting equipment, supplies, and personnel 
        necessary to support war efforts; and
            (3) encourages--
                    (A) the American people, through appropriate 
                ceremonies and activities, to recognize and commemorate 
                the service and sacrifices of the United States 
                merchant marine; and
                    (B) all government agencies to take appropriate 
                steps to commemorate the United States merchant marine.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 23.2



LOGO

26 April 2012

Focus Media Holding Limited

Unit No. 1, 20thFloor

The Centrium

60 Wyndham Street, Central

Hong Kong SAR

Attention Mr. Kit Leong Low

Dear Sirs,

Re: Focus Media Holding Limited

We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the heading Taxation  Cayman Islands in the annual report on Form
20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31 2011 of Focus Media Holding Limited to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about 27 April 2012.

Yours faithfully,

|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|LOGO                                   
|Conyers Dill & Pearman (Cayman) Limited
No. 56223.

protests 152997-K, etc. (Pittsburgh).

#### Westinghouse Electric Corporation et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# Official Journal C 73/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 73 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5925 February 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 73

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5925 February 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 073/1 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7934 — Blackstone/Norske Skog) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 073/1

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7934 — Blackstone/Norske Skog) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 073/2 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2016/C 073/3 | Decision No 943 of 1 December 2015 opening a procedure for granting authorisation for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas, being underground natural resources as defined in Article 2(1)(3) of the of the Underground Natural Resources Act, in ‘Block 1-24 Kitka’, located in Varna province, and announcing that authorisation will be granted on the basis of a competitive bidding procedure | 3 |
| | NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| 2016/C 073/4 | State aid — Decision to raise no objections | 8 |
| 2016/C 073/5 | State aid — Decision to raise no objections | 9 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 073/2

Euro exchange rates

2

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2016/C 073/3

Decision No 943 of 1 December 2015 opening a procedure for granting authorisation for the prospection and exploration of oil and natural gas, being underground natural resources as defined in Article 2(1)(3) of the of the Underground Natural Resources Act, in ‘Block 1-24 Kitka’, located in Varna province, and announcing that authorisation will be granted on the basis of a competitive bidding procedure

3

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

2016/C 073/4

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

8

2016/C 073/5

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

9

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2016/C 073/6 | Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 5 June 2015 in the case of Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund (Case E-14/15) | 10 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2016/C 073/6

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 5 June 2015 in the case of Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund (Case E-14/15)

10

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

IGNACIO ZAMORA MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL and ICE,

Respondents.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-2022RSL

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, all papers and exhibits

in support and in opposition to that petition, the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable

Mary Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find

and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED with

prejudice; and

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-02022-RSL Document 15 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PAGE -2

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge

Theiler.

DATED this 20th day of April, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02022-RSL Document 15 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 167

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 4, 1999

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the Architect of the Capitol to permit temporary

construction and other work on the Capitol Grounds

that may be necessary for construction of a building

on Constitution Avenue Northwest, between 2nd Street

Northwest and Louisiana Avenue Northwest.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS.

4 The Architect of the Capitol may permit temporary

5 construction and other work on the Capitol Grounds that

6 may be necessary for construction of a building on Con7 stitution Avenue Northwest, between 2nd Street North8 west and Louisiana Avenue Northwest. Such work may

9 include activities resulting in temporary obstruction of a

10 curbside parking lane on Louisiana Avenue Northwest and
2

HCON 167 RDS

1 on Constitution Avenue Northwest, between 2nd Street

2 Northwest and Louisiana Avenue Northwest.

3 SEC. 2. PERIOD OF USE.

4 Work on the Capitol Grounds under section 1 is au5 thorized during the period beginning August 6, 1999, and

6 ending October 31, 2001, or such longer period as the Ar7 chitect of the Capitol determines necessary.

8 SEC. 3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Work on the Capitol Grounds

10 under section 1 may not begin until the Architect of the

11 Capitol receives such assurances as the Architect may re12 quire to ensure that—

13 (1) all areas of the Capitol Grounds that are

14 disturbed by reason of such work will be restored to

15 their original condition without expense to the

16 United States; and

17 (2) such work will be carried out so as not to

18 interfere with the needs of Congress, under condi19 tions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Cap20 itol.

21 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The United

22 States shall not incur any expense or liability incident to
3

HCON 167 RDS

1 any activity associated with work on the Capitol Grounds

2 under section 1.

Passed the House of Representatives August 3,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.

By MARTHA C. MORRISON,

Deputy Clerk.
----

----

III Notices

Community Plant Variety Office

----

CALL FOR EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FOR THE POSTS OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY PLANT VARIETY OFFICE

(2005/C 305 A/01)

DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFICE AND ITS BOARD OF APPEAL

The Community Plant Variety Office, hereinafter called ‘the Office’, was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1995 on Community plant variety rights (OJ L 227, 1.9.1994, p. 1).

The purpose of the Office, a body with legal personality which has legal, administrative and financial autonomy, is to administer the Community system of plant variety rights, a specific type of industrial property rights for new plant varieties. In particular, the Office has to take decisions on applications for the grant of such rights, which guarantee uniform protection throughout the Community. The Office is based in Angers, France.

A Board of Appeal was established by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 (OJ L 121, 1.6.1995, p. 37) and is responsible for deciding on appeals against decisions of the Office, concerning, inter alia, the grant or refusal of Community plant variety rights, on objections, on the nullity or cancellation of Community plant variety rights, or on the grant or refusal of compulsory licences.

The Board of Appeal consists of a Chairman and two other members, but may call up to two further members.

DESCRIPTION OF TASKS

The member (M/F) selected shall exercise the powers conferred on the Board of Appeal, in particular those of the Rapporteur, if he/she is appointed to such post.

APPOINTMENT

The qualified members (M/F), other than the Chairman and his alternate, shall be included in a list established for five years by the Office's Administrative Council, on a proposal from the Office.

The members of the Board of Appeal are independent. In making their decisions, they are not bound by any instructions. They may not perform any other duties in the Office.

CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

The member (M/F) may continue his/her professional activities.

The member (M/F) will be chosen from the list by the Chairman of the Board of Appeal, as and when necessary, so that the Board consists of the three or five members required, as the case may be.

The member (M/F) chosen will perform his/her duties in the Office on a part-time basis. He/she must be available at least 10 days per calendar year.

By decision of the Administrative Council of 26 March 2003, the remuneration of the member appointed as Rapporteur is fixed at EUR 1 600 per case and that of the other member or members at EUR 800 per case. The sum of EUR 400 per member should be added to cover travel time to and from Angers.

QUALIFICATIONS

APPLICATIONS

Applications, accompanied by a detailed curriculum vitae (of which a translation into English, where applicable, would be appreciated), should be sent by 15 January 2006 at the latest (date as postmark) to the following address:

Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)Secretariat of the Board of AppealBP 62141FR–49021 Angers Cedex 02

Further information may be obtained from the same address by fax (33) 241 25 64 10 or by e-mail (doreau@cpvo.eu.int).

----
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


AULTRA
GOLD INC.


FORM
10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Rauno
Perttu, Chief Financial Officer of Aultra Gold Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1. The
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2007, which this certification accompanies (the "Annual Report"), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




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





By:
            /s/
      Rauno PerttuDated:
      December 29, 2008
            
            Name:
      Rauno Perttu
              Title:
      Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 33-98026, 33-98566, 33-98568 and 333-16891) on Forms S-8 of SpeedFam
International, Inc. of our reports dated June 27, 1997, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of SpeedFam International, Inc. and consolidated
subsidiaries as of May 31, 1996 and 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of earnings, retained earnings, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended May 31, 1997, and related schedules, and the
consolidated balance sheets of SpeedFam Co., Ltd. and subsidiaries as of April
30, 1996 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended April 30, 1997, which reports appear in the 1997 annual report on
Form 10-K of SpeedFam International, Inc.
 
                                          KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
 
August 22, 1997
Chicago, Illinois
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES G. KINNEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

PHILIP GUTIERREZ, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56750 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-07440-DMG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Charles G. Kinney appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing 

his action seeking a declaratory judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of judicial 

immunity. Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Kinney’s request for oral 

argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

FILED

DEC 28 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-56750 

The district court properly dismissed Kinney’s claims against Judge 

Gutierrez on the basis of judicial immunity. See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 

F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (describing factors relevant to whether an act is 

judicial in nature and subject to judicial immunity). Contrary to Kinney’s 

contention, Judge Gutierrez was not acting in a ministerial or administrative 

capacity when he issued the remand orders.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint 

without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. Cervantes v. 

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth 

standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper 

when amendment would be futile).

We reject as unsupported by the record Kinney’s contention that the district 

judge was biased.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Aaron Michael Marshall , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00160

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2022F0 0 022 ).

Panel cons ists of Chief Justice Stevens and

Justices van Cleef and Rambin. Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice

Rambin

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Aaron Michael Marshall , has adequately indicated his

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 1 2 , 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
SCOTT E. STEVENS
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:
Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
No. 61119.

protests 262365-K/7108, etc. (Chicago).

#### Alliance Manufacturing et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with- stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bamboo poles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59620, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.