alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wayne Clarke, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 576]

—Judgment reversed on the law, motion granted and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss those counts of the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30. We agree. Defendant asserted in support of his motion that the action with respect to those counts was commenced on April 13, 1993, and that defendant was arraigned on October 15, 1993, 185 days later. In response to defendant’s motion, the People asserted that they timely stated their readiness for trial on October 8, 1993. That statement, made before arraignment, is insufficient to satisfy CPL 30.30 *(see, People v Goss,*214 AD2d 1007, *lv granted*86 NY2d 744; *People v Avery,*214 AD2d 1018, *lv granted*86 NY2d 743).

Pine, J. P., and Doerr, J., concur; Fallon, Wesley and Davis, JJ., concur on constraint of *People v Goss*(214 AD2d 1007, *lv granted*86 NY2d 744) and *People v Avery*(214 AD2d 1018, *lv granted*86 NY2d 743). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J.—Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
No. 49165.

#### Protest 971898-G of Western Novelty Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

La whence, J.

The record showed the claim to be well founded and that the cups are similar to those involved in Abstract 43785, which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was sustained.
Exhibit 13.(a).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 Annual Report of Partner Communications Company Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:




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: March 22, 2012




By: /s/ Haim Romano

——————————————

Name: Haim Romano

Title: Chief Executive Officer





Date: March 22, 2012




By: /s/ Ziv Leitman

——————————————

Name: Ziv Leitman

Title: Chief Financial Officer
## SERVED: Aprill, 2014**.::~:~T ~·r·** ..-.: i**~** ', ·-' ; { U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF BOTTON ENTERPRISES, INC. FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED]. (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013- 1081
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

### -2**:~--)** '""f. j 0 [_- .:..: ()

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Agency") has filed a Motionto DeemAllegations Admitted dated March 28, 2014. Rotten Enterprises (hereinafter "Respondent") filed a Request for Hearing dated February 6, 2014. The Agency avers in its motionthat Respondent has failed to Answer the Complaint withinthe time allowed. WHEREFORE, Complainant's Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted having beenread and considered it_be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Onorbefore May 2, 2014, Respondent shall file a response to this Order stating why the reliefrequested inthe Agency's Motion should not be granted; and 2. On or before May 2, 2014, Respondent shall answer the Complaint; and 3. On orbefore May 2, 2014, Respondent shall fully comply with our Procedural Order; and 4. Absent full and complete responses to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 hereinabove, Respondent may be sanctioned including, but not limited to, allegations inthe Complaint maybe deemed admitted; and/or Respondent may be precluded from introducing any evidence atthe hearing other thanhis owntestimony; and/or Respondent's Request for Hearing may be dismissed; and/or a Default Judgment may be entered against Respondent inthe full amount ofthe fine requested bythe Agency in its Complaint.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service ListFederal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY Ashok Vij, President/CEO Horton Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a/ PremierAviation, Respondent 1951 East Airport Drive Tucson, AZ 85756 TEL: 520-907-8926 FAX: NOT PROVIDED Adam Runkel, Complainant's Counsel FDMS No. FAA-2013-1081 (Civil Penalty Action)

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Western-Pacific Region, APW-7.12 Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 425-227-2914 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430.
2
Docket No. FAA-2016-0464 Dir ID 2015-NM-046-AD

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 3/10/15

Regional Airline Association 3/10/15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 3/10/15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 3/10/15
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0036 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0036

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (COM(2006)0241 - C6-0235/2006 - 2006/0083(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 287 E , 29/11/2007 P. 0341 - 0341 *

P6_TA(2007)0036

Voluntary modulation of direct payments under the CAP *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (COM(2006)0241 — C6-0235/2006 — 2006/0083(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0241) [1],

- having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0235/2006),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 52(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0315/2006),

- having regard to the second report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0009/2007),

1. Rejects the Commission proposal;

2. Calls on the Commission to withdraw its proposal;

3. Calls on the Commission, if it does not withdraw its proposal, to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
No. 65514.

#### Alfred H. Marzolf *v.*United States,

protests 297933-K, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

April 29, 1958

No. 61877.

#### International Expediters, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 217819-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles in chief value of metal, suitable for use and used to distribute electrical energy, and that they are not machines for determining the strength of materials or articles in tension, compression, torsion, >or shear, flashlights, batteries, vacuum cleaners, not internal combustion engines, nor parts thereof, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY L. PATTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1893 FCD PAN P

vs.

R.S. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01893-FCD-EFB Document 37 Filed 09/07/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 25, 2006 motion

for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: September 7, 2006.

14/mp

patt1893.31

Case 2:04-cv-01893-FCD-EFB Document 37 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 6495.

#### WIDOW JEAN MULE vs. CHARLES PAJEWSKI.

Syllabus.

1. Earnest is a sum of money which one of the contracting parties gives to the other at the time of the contract, and is presumed to be a forfeit in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

2. A forfeit is a penalty, and a contract with a forfeit to bind it, is simply a contract with a penal clause.

3. Where the principal contract is not binding, the penal clause is' not enforceable. -

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “A,” No. 110,180. Honorable T. 'C. W. Ellis, Judge.

Roger Meunier, for plaintiff and appellee.

Dart, Kernan & Dart, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Appellant (defendant below) says in his brief:

> ‘ ‘ The plaintiff sues the defendant for $460, return of a deposit made as earnest money to bind a verbal agreement of sale of certain realty.” (P. 1.)

And again:

> “ Under the law the promise of sale must be in writing, as well as the sale itself. Therefore the sale is not susceptible of enforeement. ” (P. 2.)

He quotes from Legier vs. Braughn, 123 La., 463, as follows:

> “Earnest, in the civil law, is a sum of money which one of the contracting parties delivers to the other at *143the time of the contract, and is presumed to be a forfeit, in the .absence of evidence that the parties then and there intended to bind themselves by an irrevocable contract.”

This is a correct and sufficient statement .of the facts and law of this case, and needs simply to be followed to its logical conclusion.

The 'Century Dictionary-thus defines a forfeit, to-wit:

> ‘ ‘ That to which the legal or moral right is lost by one’s own ¡act or failure to act as by breach of condition or by a wrong deed or offense; hence, that which is taken or paid in forfeiture; a fine, *a,*mulct, a penalty.”

Hence a contract with a forfeit ‘ ‘ to bind it, ’ ’ is simply a contract with a penal clause; since “a penal clause is a secondary obligation entered into for the purpose of enforcing a primary obligation,” that is, “to give or do something, if the principal agreement be not carried out.” C. 0., 2117, 2118.

But, as a matter of course, “the nullity of the primary obligation involves■ that of the penal clause.” C. C., 2183.

From, which it follows, that the promise of sale herein under consideration,' béing confessedly not binding, and therefore null, (9 Cyc., 240) the penal clause or forfeiture annexed thereto is likewise unenforceable. •

Accordingly, the'forfeit money thus given remains the property of the one who gave it, who may therefore reclaim it. •

The judgment appealed from is correct.

*144Opinion and decree, January 3rd, 1916.

Rehearing refused, January 17th, 1916.

Writ denied, February 23, 1916.

Judgment .affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                 SUBSIDIARIES
                           (as of December 31, 2000)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     Name                                          Ownership
------------------------------------------------------------------------------=================
<S>                                                                             <C>
1.  BuyGolf.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation                                         100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------=================
2.  BUY CORP EUROPE, INC., a California                                               100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------=================
3.  BUY.COM ENTERTAINMENT INC., a Delaware corporation (wholly-owned                  100%
 subsidiary)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------=================
4.  Aqueduct (formerly BuyNow Inc.)                                                     9%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------=================
5.  INTERNET COMPUTERSTORE.COM INC., a California corporation                         100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------=================
6.  TelStreet.Com, Inc., an Indiana Corporation                                       100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------=================
7.  Buy.Com Limited                                                                    50%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------=================
8.  Buy.Com Pty. Limited                                                               50%
===============================================================================================
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105·3901 

Mr. Eric L. Hiser 

Jorden Bi choff & Hi er, P.L.C. 

7272 E. Indian School Road, Suit 360 

cottsdale, Arizona 85251 

Dear Mr. Hi er: 

JUN 0 6 2013 

OFFICE OF THE 

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 

The U.S . Environmental Prot ction Agenc_ (EPA) has received th petition you submitted on 

February 4, 2013 on behalf of rizona El ctric Power Cooperative (AEPCO), seeking r consid ration 

and a stay of effectiveness of certain element of EPA's final rule entitled "Approval, Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Qualit Implem ntation Plans; Arizona; R gional Haze State and Federal 

Implem ntation Plans" a it applies to the Apache Generating Station (Apach ), 77 FR 72512 (Dec. 5, 

2012). We have also receiv d the supplement to the petition that you ubmitted on May 29, 2013, which 

et out an alt rnative to the determinations of Best Availabl R trofit Technology (BART) for Apache 

Unit ST2 and ST3 refl cted in that rule. 

In re pon e to your p tition, EPA i granting partial reconsid ration of our final rule pur uant to 

ection 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B). In particular, in 

response to AEPCO"s proposed alternative to BART for Apache Units ST2 and ST3, we are granting 

r consid ration of the emi ion limit for nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxid (S02) and particulate 

matter (PM) at tho e unit . In addition, we are granting reconsideration of the compliance methodology 

for NOx in our final rule as it applies to Apache Units ST2 and ST3. Finally, we are granting 

r onsideration ofth provi ion of our final rule concerning Apache Unit STl and GTl in order to 

clarify the circumstances und r which the BART limit for STl apply to thes units. 

Accordingly, EPA plans to publish a notic of propo d rul making seeking comment on an alt rnative 

to BART and a revi d complianc m thodology for Apache Unit T2 and T3. A pati of this notice, 

we also intend to propos and seek comm nt on a clarification to the regulatory text concerning the 

applicability of BART limit to Tl and GT1 . 

If you have any question regardi ng th r consideration proce , please contact Charlotte Withey at 

(415) 972-3915 or Lea And ron at (202) 564-5571. We thank you for your continued interet in thi 

Printt'd on Recyclt'd Papa 
rule and look forward to hearing from you during the reconsideration process. 

Sincerely, 

cc : Mr. Eric Massey, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

Mr. Joseph P. Mikitish, Arizona Attorney General's Office 

Mr. Michael Hiatt, Earthju tice 

Arizona Congressional Delegation
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP WRIGHT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2649 FCD GGH P

vs.

STATE BOARD OF CONTROL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 8, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-02649-FCD-GGH Document 6 Filed 05/27/05 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

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 8, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED:May 27, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

/wrig2649.800

Case 2:04-cv-02649-FCD-GGH Document 6 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 2
Before Judge Watson,

June 20, 1968

No. R68/24.

reappraisement R67/4966 (New York).

#### Dana Parfumes Corp. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 727, A.R.D. 210), the court found and held that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the “Canoe” 'cologne here involved and that such value is as stated in schedule “B,” said schedule “B” being attached to and made a part of the decision, plus the *fro rata*share of the cost of packing as indicated on the invoices.
May 20, 2015 

 

Mr. Simeon Fritz 

912 Mount Pleasant Road 

Kingston Springs, TN 37082 

Dear Mr. Simeon Fritz: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your March 25th, 2015 exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-0762), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
No. 64172.

protest 59/25106 (New York).

#### The Saxony Wool Corp. of New York *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
No. 54680.

#### Max Duraffourg et al. *v.*United States,

protests 128444-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

July 5, 1939

No. 41780.

#### Protest 975721 of S. Stern (New York).

*323Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the evidence it was found that certain items consist of trimmings, embroidered. The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
No. 41790.

#### Protests 648362-G, etc., of Domenico D’Angiola, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 it was held that an allowance should have been made in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible covering on the outside.
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Robert Elmer Barber,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1844 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

McGregor W. Scott, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoAugust 19, 2005, respondent requested an extension of time

to file and serve a response to the petition. Good cause

appearing, respondent’s request is granted and time is extended

until 30 days from the date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: September 1, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 24 Filed 09/02/05 Page 1 of 1