alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dolores Ventricelli, Individually and as Executrix of Angelo Ventricelli, Deceased, Appellant-Respondent, v Peter DeGennaro, Respondent-Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 315]

—Ap*232peal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lottie Wilkins, J.), entered September 20, 1994, deemed to be an appeal from judgment of the same court and Justice entered October 24, 1994, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $150,000 and interest thereon, and as so considered, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On appeal from a determination reached after nonjury trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed unless the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence. Here, the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of the witnesses *(Thoreson v Penthouse Inti.,*80 NY2d 490, 495). The trial court reasonably determined that the terms and provisions of the parties’ contract for the sale of real property constituted a security interest rather than a novation, which extinguished the defendant’s debt on the promissory notes in issue. The trial record reveals that the defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof of establishing that it was the intent of the parties to effect a novation substituting a new obligor or another contract for the original obligation. The contract of sale was devoid of any language indicating that the contract between plaintiff and defendant’s corporation, DCP Holding Corp., either revoked, cancelled, extinguished, superseded or otherwise satisfied defendant’s obligations to plaintiff on the promissory notes *{see, Schloss Bros. & Co. v Bennett,*260 NY 243, 248; *Globe Food Servs. Corp. v Consolidated Edison Co.,*184 AD2d 278, 279).

Nor did the trial court err in finding that defendant had repaid, and thereby satisfied, two 1987 promissory notes in the total sum of $175,000. Plaintiff, as the alleged payee, failed to sustain her burden of proving ownership of the notes at trial by either producing the original promissory notes or satisfactorily setting forth the circumstances of their loss *(Marrazzo v Piccolo,*163 AD2d 369; *see also, Felt v Olson,*51 NY2d 977). The trial record indicates that it was the parties’ ordinary custom and practice to return the original promissory notes to defendant upon their payment.

We have reviewed the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T T E R E NC E J OH N F I NC H, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71291 A ge nc yN o. A 096- 107- 987 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 29, 2010 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T e r e nc e J ohn F i nc h, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of E ngl and, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s dec i si on denyi ng hi s app l i cat i on for c ance l l at i on of re m ov al a n dd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e m an d . O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . 

# FI LED JU L 16 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71291 2 § 1 25 2. W e di sm i ss i n p artand d eny i n p artthe pet i t i on for r evi ew . W e l ac k ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e B I A ’s d is c r e tio n aryd e te rm in a tio n th a t F in c h f a ile dto show exce pt i on aland extre m el y unu sualhardship t o a qu al i fy i ng re l at i ve. See M art i nez-R osas v. G on zales , 42 4 F . 3d 92 6, 93 0 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). T he e vi de nc e F i nc h pr e s e nt e d w i th hi s m ot i on t o r e m and c onc e rne d the s a m e b a s ic h ar d s h ip g r o u n d s a s h is ap p lic a tio n f o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. See Ferna ndezv. G on zales , 43 9 F . 3d 59 2, 60 2-03 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). W e there fore l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B IA ’ s di sc re t i on ary det erm i nat i on thatthe evi dence w as in s u f f ic ie n t to e s tab lis h ap r im af a c ie c a s e o f

h ar d s h ip . Se e i d. a t601. F i nc h’ s r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons a r e una va i l i ng. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Barry H. Bass, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First PotomacRealty Trust;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under its supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report its conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board oftrustees (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal controls over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.   Date: August 9, 2004 /s/ Barry H. Bass
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

** PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of EnerNOC, Inc.(the “Company”), for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,Timothy G. Healy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Neal C. Isaacson,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code,that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

Date: November 13, 2008

 
| By:    | /s/ Timothy G. Healy    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Timothy G. Healy        |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                    |
|   |                    |
| By:    | /s/ Neal C. Isaacson    |   |
|   | Neal C. Isaacson        |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

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

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3922]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2006-24003; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-12]
RIN 2120-AA66


Revision of Class E Airspace; Adak, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This technical amendment corrects a final rule published in 
the Federal Register on August 1, 2006 (71 FR 43357), Docket No. FAA-
2006-24003, Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-12. In that rule, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 was published as FAA Order 7400.9N. The correct 
reference is FAA Order 7400.9P. Also, the corresponding dates that 
refer to the Order should state ``* * * September 1, 2006, and 
effective September 15, 2006 * * *'' instead of ``* * * September 1, 
2005, and effective September 15, 2005''. This technical amendment 
corrects those errors.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March 8, 2007. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tameka Bentley, Airspace and Rules, 
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 1, 2006, a final rule was published in the Federal 
Register, Docket No. FAA-2006-24003, Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-12, 
that amended Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 71 by revising 
Class E Airspace; Adak, AK (71 FR 43357). In that rule, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 was published as FAA Order 7400.9N. The correct 
reference is FAA Order 7400.9P. In addition, the corresponding dates 
that refer to the Order are incorrect. Instead of ``* * * September 1, 
2005, and effective September 15, 2005'', the dates should read ``* * * 
September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006 * * *''.

Amendment to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 for Docket No. FAA-2006-24003, Airspace Docket No. 
06-AAL-12, as published in the Federal Register on August 1, 2006 (71 
FR 43357), is corrected as follows:

0
On page 43358, column 1, lines 4, 6 and 7 and column 2, lines 29, 31 
and 32, amend the language to read:


Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

* * * * *
    ``* * * FAA Order 7400.9P'' instead of ``FAA Order 7400.9N * * *''.
    ``* * * September 1, 2006, and effective September 15, 2006 * * *'' 
instead of ``* * * September 1, 2005, and effective September 15, 2005 
* * *''.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, February 20, 2007.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules.
[FR Doc. E7-3922 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
No. 51380.

#### Protests 51470-K, etc., of Henry M. Peyser & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the samé in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *209*Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Evidence Table A3: DISCRETE outcomes for class CLEANSER (TOPICAL).

Trial #

Method Info

Discrete Outcome Name (Units)

Definition/Comments

Between

P-value

Follow- Treatment Comparator

up (wks)

Comparison Attribute: Number of patient Attribute: Number of patients

A.01.01 Acidic syndet bar Soap

Itching Present 0

Absent 57

Present 12

Absent 45

197

Parallel Mild

N=114

È Mid (12)

Redness Present 1

Absent 56

Present 15

Absent 41

Mid (12)

Scaling Present 1

Absent 56

Present 12

Absent 45

Mid (12)

A.01.04 Povidone-iodine Vehicle

235 Itching Itching 0 Itching 1

Parallel Mild

N=30

Í Long (14

Overall change/physician Much improved or improved 9

No change or worse 1

Much improved or improved 3

No change or worse 4

Long (14

TRIAL: -presence of positive or negative methodological features (see Summary Table). "Mild/mod," etc., -our assessment of entry severity of study patients. "P"- to parallel study, "S"-split face design. BETWEEN 

P-VALUE: comparison between Target and Comparator arms.

Evidence Table A DISCRETE: Page 1 of 1

ÈÍ
Order entered July 23 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00878

- CR
MARIO LOPEZ JUCUP, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10

- 55339

- R



### O RDER

The Court DENIES as moot appellant’s July 21, 2014 request for an extension of time to file his pro se response to the Anders brief filed by counsel. On July 14, 2014, the Court ordered counsel to provide appellant a copy of the record and gave appellant until October 1, 2014 to file his pro se response.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order , by electronic transmission, to the
Honorable Mark Stoltz, Presiding Judge, 265th Judicial District Court; Mary Snider, of ficial court reporter, 265th Judicial District Court; Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; April Smith; and Michael Casillas.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first

- class mail, to Mario Jucup, TDCJ No. 1870734, Holliday Unit , 295 I.H. 45 North, Huntsville, Texas 77320

- 8443.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
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

MARK STEVEN ERCKERT

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2525 DFL KJM P 

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a federal pretrial detainee proceeding with an application for writ of

habeas corpus. The court has received notification from attorney Jan Karowsky that he will

represent petitioner in this matter. Also, counsel has asked that this matter be stayed. Good

cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Jan Karowsky is appointed as counsel for petitioner;

2. This matter is stayed;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this case;

4. Counsel for petitioner shall inform the court within ten days of the entry of

judgment in CR-S-04-0104 DFL;

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Mr. Karowsky a copy of petitioner’s

November 29, 2004 petition for writ of habeas corpus; and

Case 2:04-cv-02525-DFL -KJM Document 6 Filed 04/28/05 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

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this order to Cynthia

Compton at the Federal Defender’s Office. 

DATED: April 27, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

erck2525.sub

Case 2:04-cv-02525-DFL -KJM Document 6 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Quarterly Report of American Home Mortgage Investment
Corp. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Stephen A. Hozie, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 Registrant.


July 28, 2005

                                                   /s/ Stephen A. Hozie
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Stephen A. Hozie
                                                Executive Vice President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 463 

To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to include certain 

communities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 

Ms. SINEMA (for herself, Mr. KELLY, and Ms. ROSEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to 

include certain communities, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Downwinders Parity 

5 Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCLUSION UNDER THE RADIATION EXPOSURE 

7 COMPENSATION ACT. 

8 Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation Exposure Com9 pensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note; Public Law 101– 

10 426) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 463 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (B)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘that portion of’’; and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘that consists of townships 

4 13 through 16 at ranges 63 through 71’’; and 

5 (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘‘all acre6 age in any county all or part of which is located in’’ 

7 before ‘‘that part’’. 

8 SEC. 3. REPORT. 

9 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

10 of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to the rel11 evant committees of the Senate and the House of Rep12 resentatives a report that outlines efforts to educate and 

13 conduct outreach to persons made newly eligible for bene14 fits under the amendments made by section 2. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit23.1**

**Report ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firmon Consolidated Financial Statement Schedule**

The Board ofDirectorsWitness Systems, Inc.:

Under date of March 30,2007, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets of Witness Systems, Inc.and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss),and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December31, 2006, as contained in the annual report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2006.  In connection with our audits of theaforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also audited the relatedconsolidated financial statement schedule as listed in the accompanying indexin this annual report on Form 10-K.  Thisfinancial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company’smanagement.  Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits.

Our report dated March30, 2007 on the consolidated financial statements referred to above refers to achange in the Company’s method of accounting for share-based compensation uponadoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share-Based Payment,*effective January 1, 2006, and achange in the Company’s method of quantifying errors upon adoption of StaffAccounting Bulletin No. 108, *Consideringthe Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements inCurrent Year Financial Statements,*effective December 31, 2006*.*

In our opinion, suchfinancial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basicconsolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in allmaterial respects, the information set forth therein.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Atlanta, GeorgiaMarch 30, 2007

 

----
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00188-CR

ROLANDO M. ROMERO

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On appeal from the

36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-11-5113-2-CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 24, 2013.
No. 52298.

protests 124989-K, etc. (New York).

#### Lifton Mfg. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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

MAE ELLA ROBERTSON, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2627 DFL PAN P

vs

GLORIA HENRY, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 March 16, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

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-02627-DFL-PAN Document 11 Filed 06/24/05 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 March 16, 2005, are adopted in full. 

2. Petitioner’s December 10, 2004, application to proceed in forma pauperis is

denied.

3. This action is summarily dismissed for failure to exhaust state judicial

remedies. 

Dated: 6/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02627-DFL-PAN Document 11 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 61894.

#### May Dept. Stores Co. and Kaufmann-Pittsburgh *v.*United States,

protest 139471-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *E. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 368, C. D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.