alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mathew Brady, Respondent, v George Zambrana et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 139]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered June 20, 1994, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer and to enter a default judgment unless defendants responded to all outstanding discovery requests within 30 days of service of the order with notice of entry and dismissed defendants’ counterclaims, and order and judgment, same court and Justice, entered January 4, 1995 and January 20, 1995, respectively, which granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answer and to enter a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $150,000 plus interest, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of directing the recalculation of the amount of interest in a manner consistent herewith, and otherwise affirmed, with one bill of costs to plaintiff.

The sanctions imposed by the IAS Court, the striking of the answer and entry of a default judgment, was proper *(see, Besson v Beime,*188 AD2d 330). Defendants’ counsel offered as an excuse for defendant Zambrana’s failure to appear for his deposition counsel’s inability to contact Zambrana. Counsel further claimed that her ability to comply with document requests *172had been "frustrated” by her own mother’s health problems and by the health of Zambrana’s mother. Counsel’s explanations do not excuse the noncompliance with the discovery demands. Not one document or reply to an interrogatory was ever produced. Counsel’s inability to locate defendant Zambrana in order to produce him for the deposition provides no basis for denying a motion to strike defendants’ answer *(see, Reitte v Entermy Cab Corp.,*162 AD2d 259). Counsel did not cooperate in setting up a discovery schedule as directed at a preliminary conference, and never substantiated her claim that her plans to comply with discovery demands were "frustrated” by health emergencies. Finally, counsel did not comply with the court’s June 1994 order that discovery be completed within 30 days.

The amount of interest awarded to plaintiff on the loan principal amount must be recalculated. The IAS Court applied the statutory rate of 9% per annum for the entire period starting on June 3, 1987, the date the parties’ loan and other agreements were originally signed. However, the 5% contract rate of interest should be applied for the period from June 3, 1987 until February 28, 1990, the due date specified in the loan agreement and the promissory note, since no default occurred prior to the latter date. As for the post-February 28, 1990 period, since no provision was made for a default interest rate, the statutory rate of 9% is appropriate *(Levy, King & White Adv. v Gallery of Homes,*177 AD2d 967, 968). Therefore, the matter should be remanded to the IAS Court for recalculation of the interest amount utilizing the rate of 5% before February 28, 1990 and 9% thereafter *(Marine Midland Bank v 281 Groton Corp.,*142 AD2d 941, 942).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
No. 46725.

#### Protest 775072-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel wooden cabinets similar to those the subject of Abstract 37636 were held dutiable at 33)4 percent under paragraph 412; cigarette whistles similar to those the subject of Abstract 39509 and squawker balloons similar to those the subject of Abstract 40493 were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 409 as articles in part of bamboo.
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

CARL DAVID WHITE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2276 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 17, 2005, the court ordered the United

States Marshal to serve the complaint on defendants. Process directed to defendant S. Mancayo

was returned unserved because “dft no longer employed at CSATF . . . per CDC personnel

services section, no record found.” On April 19, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to provide

additional information to serve defendant. The court directed plaintiff to seek such information

through discovery, the California Public Records Act, California Government Code § 6250, or

other means available.

On May 19, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for court intervention. Plaintiff states

that the litigation coordinator did not respond to his request for information regarding the

location of defendant Mancayo. Plaintiff requests courts assistance.

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 23 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

Plaintiff has not sought information regarding defendant Mancayo’s location

through all methods suggested by the court in the April 18, 2005, order. Under these

circumstances, plaintiff’s request for court assistance in locating defendant Mancayo is

premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 19, 2005, motion

for court assistance is denied.

DATED: 5/27/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

wh2276.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02276-GEB-GGH Document 23 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 64898.

#### Canada Packers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/15969, etc. (New York).

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 plaintiffs was sustained.
# Digital Coast

      - Home
      - About
      - Data
      - Tools
      - Training
      - Apply It
      - Stories

## You are here

Home

      - About
      - Glossary
      - Resources

### Apply It

        - Understand
        - Identify
        - Visualize
        - Communicate
        - Discover

See how Digital Coast resources are used to address coastal issues.

#### Coastal Inundation Toolkit

Use these tools to better understand and address the inundation issues facing coastal communities

### Understand

What is coastal inundation, its causes, and impacts?

###### More >>

### Identify

How do I recognize community risks?

###### More >>

### Visualize

How can visualizations improve understanding of inundation?

###### More >>

### Communicate

What are the best ways to communicate risk and vulnerability information?

###### More >>

### Discover

What are others doing to address coastal inundation?

###### More >>

Developed by the Digital Coast Partnership

#### Conserving Coastal Wetlands for Sea Level Rise Adaptation

Employ spatial techniques, resources, and examples to help communities prioritize their coastal wetland conservation efforts

### Understand

Why are coastal wetlands valuable and how can they help in coping with sea level rise?

###### More >>

### Identify

What spatial data, tools, and techniques can help identify vulnerable wetlands and those that could increase resilience to sea level rise?

###### More >>

### Prioritize

What spatial data, tools, and techniques can help prioritize existing or potential future wetland areas for protection?

###### More >>

### Engage

How can I build stakeholder support for my strategies?

###### More >>

### Discover

How are others incorporating sea level rise information into conservation and other planning efforts?

###### More >>

Developed by the NOAA Coastal Services Center

#### Social Coast

Address coastal issues with social science data and tools.

### What

What are the social sciences and social science data?

###### More >>

### How

How can social science data help me?

###### More >>

### Get it

Where do I get started?

###### More >>

Developed by the NOAA Coastal Services Center

#### Live Technical Assistance

Processing request...please wait.

Date you would like to participate (support is available every Monday, except holidays, from 3 to 4 p.m.)

Name

Email

Telephone

Organization

Which product would you like to talk about?HPP – Habitat Priority PlannerN-SPECT – Nonpoint-Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison ToolCanVisC-CAP – Coastal Change Analysis ProgramISAT – Impervious Surface Analysis ToolOther 

Briefly describe what you would like to talk about

Sign me up

Nevermind
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

LORENZO CARL PAYNES, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1868 MCE KJM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed May 5, 2005, plaintiff's complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended

complaint.

The amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the amended complaint are proven,

plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Runnels, Woodford,

Tuttin, and Felker.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01868-MCE -KJM Document 10 Filed 12/30/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff four USM-285 forms, one

summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed May 23, 2005. 

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and 

d. Five copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed May 23, 2005. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: December 29, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

payn1868.1amd

Case 2:04-cv-01868-MCE -KJM Document 10 Filed 12/30/05 Page 2 of 3
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORENZO CARL PAYNES, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1468 MCE KJM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 4 completed USM-285 forms

 5 copies of the 5/23/05 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01868-MCE -KJM Document 10 Filed 12/30/05 Page 3 of 3
(Reap. Dec. 8533)

#### S. Stern Henry & Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 18122, etc.

(Decided January 27, *1956)*

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

WilsoN, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule "A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise and the issues in the Appeals to Reappraisement listed in the Schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues decided in the case of *United States*v. *Nelson Bead Co.,*C. A. D. 590, and that the record in said case be incorporated and made a part of the record herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated herein, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

> On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case No. 9,077.

#### The MARIA BISHOP.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 552.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. 14, 1863.

Prize — Enemy Property — Salvase—After Capture.

1. Vessel and cargo condemned as enemy property.

2. The vessel and cargo having been shipwrecked after seizure, and having been saved by salvors, the court allowed to the salvors, as salvage, one-half of the net proceeds of the salved property, deducting the costs incurred by the United States in the prize suit.

In admiralty.

BETTS, District Judge.

The above vessel and cargo were captured off Charleston harbor, May 17, 1863. After seizure the vessel and cargo were shipwrecked. The vessel became a total loss, and was abandoned at sea, and the cargo was reclaimed by salvors, and brought to this port for adjudication. A libel was filed by the libellants, against the prize, in this court, June 3d. thereafter, and a writ of attachment was issued thereon on the same day, returnable on the 23d of June following. The marshal returned thereon due service of it upon the said cargo, and no person intervening therefor, except as salvors, defaults were taken, according to the course of the court, and a decree of condemnation was ordered by the court thereupon. On the hearing of the case upon the merits, it was fully proved on the part of the United States that the vessel and cargo were enemy property, owned in Charleston, and had been brought out of that port in violation of the blockade thereof. On the 2d of June, 1863, the Coast Wrecking Company filed a libel against the aforesaid schooner Maria Bishop and her cargo, demanding a salvage compensation for services, etc., in relieving and saving her from shipwreck and loss while under capture,- as aforesaid, by the United States. On the 21st of June following, the United States interposed an answer and claim, and also their own libel, setting forth and demanding the same relief for the aforesaid services. The United States attorney having admitted in court the justness of such demand, and the counsel for the respective parties having submitted it to the judgment of the court to determine the amount of salvage rightfully payable for the salvage services aforesaid, the court, having examined the testimony submitted in the case, and considered the premises, adjudges- and determines that one-half of the net proceeds of the salved property, deducting the costs incurred by the United States in the prize suit, be paid to the salvors, or the party representing their interests. A decree to that effect will be entered.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4350]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-316-000]


Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

March 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 28, 2007, Viking Gas Transmission 
Company (Viking) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets attached to the 
filing, to become effective on April 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#470102150408292b2e292214323737283533072122352469202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3a5a6b1a0ac8d8f8a8d86b09693938c9197a385869180cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4350 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Before the Third Division,

April 13, 1949

No. 53031.

#### Wm. Filene’s Sons Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 47085-K, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 44041.

#### Petition 5975-R of Musolino Lo Conte Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the testimony it was found that there was no intent to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROBERT P. MILLER, Recruit, U. S. Army, Appellant

13 USCMA 66, 32 CMR 66

No. 15,779

April 27, 1962

*Captain Vernon C. Maulson*and *First Lieutenant Ira M. Lechner*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Francis M. Cooper*and *Captain William E. Johnson*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam::

Although it was reasonably placed in issue by the evidence, the law officer failed to inform the court-martial of the elements of simple assault, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 128, 10 USC § 928, as a lesser included offense of specification 1 of Charge III, which alleges that the accused assaulted his superior noncom-missioned officer, in violation of Code, supra, Article 91, 10 USC § 891. This omission requires that the findings of guilty with respect to this offense be set aside. United States v Simmons, 1 USCMA 691, 5 CMR 119; United States v Clay, 9 USCMA 582, 26 CMR 362; United States v Sasser, 11 USCMA 498, 29 CMR 314.

The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army. The board of review may affirm a conviction of assault in connection with specification 1 of Chárge III and reassess the sentence or it may order a rehearing with respect to that charge and the penalty.
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



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  filing of the  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter Ended  November 30, 2004 (the "Report") by
Advanced Media Training, Inc.  ("Registrant"),  the undersigned hereby certifies
that:

1.       to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
         requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

2.       to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         results of operations of Registrant.




January 12, 2005                             By:    /S/ BUDDY YOUNG
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   Buddy Young
                                                   Chief Executive Officer and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
No. 66857.

#### The Spiegel Bros. Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 61/9369 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of steel harness hardware for use with harness for dogs similar in all material respects to that the subject of *International Expediters, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 230, C.D. 1868), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.