alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Roxanne Gernhardt, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 397]

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated June 10, 1994, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the trial calendar is denied.

Following a trial that was completed on January 30, 1991, the Supreme Court set aside the verdict on the issue of damages and set the matter down for a new trial on that issue. In May 1994, the plaintiff moved to restore the action to the trial calendar. At approximately the same time, the plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to the defendant’s counsel advising him that, since the conclusion of the trial, the plaintiff underwent four additional surgeries, including one for a total knee replacement, and that she was admitted to a psychiatric institute for the treatment of psychological problems that were a result of *503her physical disabilities. The plaintiffs counsel also advised the defendant’s counsel that the plaintiff was unable to walk, that she had not returned to work, and that she was being treated for reflex sympathetic dystrophy.

Under these circumstances, in which the plaintiff has alleged a substantial change of circumstances, we conclude that it was an improvident exercise of the Supreme Court’s discretion to restore the action to the trial calendar without affording the defendant the opportunity to conduct additional discovery, including re-examinations of the plaintiff, if necessary *(see, Buerger v County of Erie,*101 AD2d 1025). We note that the plaintiff will be entitled to move again to restore the action to the trial calendar at the conclusion of any additional discovery. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.
No. 55334.

#### E. Ashkenazi et al. *v.*United States,

protests 166934-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
#### JOHN H. GOUGEON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF STONE HARBOR, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS AND JOSEPH F. GREENE, *ET ALS.,*INTERVENORS-PETITIONERS.

*Messrs. Curry, Purnell & Greene*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Joseph P. Greco*for the respondent.

January 16, 1968.

Granted.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS29273 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7620
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROWAN G. PINKETT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-487-A, CA-96-1386-AM) Submitted: March 18, 1997 Decided: April 22, 1997 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Rowan G. Pinkett, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Clifford Chesnut, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although not expressly addressed by the district judge, Appellant's claim that he was misadvised by counsel as to the maximum possible sentence is belied by the plea agreement. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Pinkett , Nos. CR-95-487-A; CA-96-1386-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 1996). We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 52326.

protest 66868-K (San Francisco).

#### Pacific Trading Co. *v.*United States,

*319Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of dried, unsalted fish the same in all material respects as that passed upon in Abstract 50242 the claim at 1J4 cents per pound under paragraph 717 (c) was sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 51 (Friday, March 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4827]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Enhanced-Use Lease Development of Property at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA) Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center in Sepulveda, CA

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice of intent to enter into an enhanced-use lease.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
intends to enter into two enhanced-use leases with a joint venture 
consisting of two not-for-profit organizations. Each enhanced-use lease 
will include a building with an underlying parcel of land. Both parcels 
are located on approximately 5 acres of the VA Sepulveda Ambulatory 
Care Center campus in Sepulveda, California. The lessee would develop, 
finance, renovate, construct, manage, maintain and operate the 
buildings to provide permanent supportive housing and ancillary 
services for the homeless, with priority placement for homeless 
veterans within the community. In addition to such property 
enhancements and veteran services, VA would receive consideration for 
the lease, in the form of in-kind services such as training, use of 
space, and professional counseling services to veteran tenants, and 
cash in the form of a percentage of revenues from certain filmmaking 
activities on the property.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Sexton, Office of Asset 
Enterprise Management (004B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-9470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 8 U.S.C. 8161 et seq. states that the 
Secretary may enter into an enhanced-use lease if he determines that 
the implementation of a business plan proposed by the Under Secretary 
for Health for applying the consideration under such a lease to the 
provision of medical care and services would result in a demonstrable 
improvement of services to eligible veterans in the geographic service-
delivery area within which the property is located. This project meets 
this requirement.

    Approved: March 8, 2007.
R. James Nicholson,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7-4827 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
No. 50534.

#### Protests 56068-K, etc., of Thomas E. Smith (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) 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 sot forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8(Registration No. 333-33974) pertaining to the Apropos Technology, Inc.2000 Omnibus Incentive Plan and the Apropos Technology, Inc. EmployeeStock Purchase Plan of 2000, of our report dated January 29, 2004, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Apropos Technology, Inc.as of December 31, 2003 and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31,2003 included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,2004.
|                   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|-------------------|---------------------------|
| Chicago, Illinois |                      |
| March 25, 2005    |                      |

 

 

1

----
#### Rounick, Appellant, *v.*Sowa.

Argued April 25, 1969.

May 9, 1969:

Before Beul, C. J., Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

Jae/c *A. Rounick,*with him *Moss, Rounick and Hurowitz,*for appellant.

*Michael R. Bradley,*for appellee.

Order

Per Curiam,

Case remitted to the Superior Court.

Mr. Justice Jones took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### Marvin W. Phillips, *Respondent, v.*Stiles B. Ellsworth, *Appel*lant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.
#### David H. McAlpin, *Respondent, v.*Caroline Voytits, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

Order refusing to vacate injunction affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Gilbert, J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5127]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Filing Guidelines for CPA Certification Statements, 
Annual Stockholders Reports, FERC-730 and FERC-61

March 15, 2007.

CPA Certification Statements, Docket No. ZZ07-1-000 ; Annual 
Stockholders Reports, Docket No. ZZ07-2-000; FERC-730 Reports of 
Transmission Investment Activity; Docket No. ZZ07-3-000; FERC-61 
Narrative Description of Service Company Functions; Docket No. HC07-
7-000.

    Take notice that the Commission is issuing electronic filing 
guidelines for submission of:
    (1) CPA Certification Statements for FERC Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 2, and 
2-A filed pursuant to 18 CFR 41.10-41.12 and 18 CFR 158.10-158.12. 
These Certification Statements will be filed under Docket No. ZZ07-1-
000.
    (2) Annual Stockholders Reports filed in conjunction with FERC Form 
Nos. 1, 2, 2-A and 6. These Reports will all be filed under Docket No. 
ZZ07-2-000.
    (3) FERC-730, Reports of Transmission Investment Activity, filed 
pursuant to 18 CFR 35.35(h). These Reports will all be filed under 
Docket No. ZZ07-3-000.
    (4) FERC-61, Narrative Description of Service Company Functions, 
filed pursuant to 18 CFR 366.23(a)(2). These Narrative Descriptions 
will all be filed under Docket HC07-7-000.
    The electronic filing guidelines are attached to this notice and 
will available on the Commission's Web site at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/how-to.asp.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5127 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit
        32**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**
 **OF
        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 The
        undersigned, Tony Philipp, the Chief Executive Officer and Paul Schmidt,
        the
        Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of UPSNAP, INC. (the "Company"), DO
        HEREBY
        CERTIFY that:
 
 1.
 
        The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June
        30,
        2007 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
        of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2.
 
        Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this
        20th
        day of August 2007.
 
 
 /s/
        Tony Philipp
 Tony
        Philipp
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 (Principal
        Executive Officer)
 
 /s/
        Paul Schmidt
 Paul
        Schmidt
 Chief
        Financial Officer and Treasurer
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        UpSNAP, Inc. and will be retained by Upsnap, Inc. and furnished to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 52381.

protests 53327-K, etc. (San Francisco).

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

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ANTHONY J. CARRATURA, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Abraham Miller*and *Mr. Gerald D. Miller*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Joseph P. Lordi*and *Mr'. Barry H. Evenchick*for the respondent.

February 27, 1968.

Denied.
No. 55336.

#### McKesson & Robbins, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 157609-K/2767 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statements Nos. 33-114926, 333-156639 and 333-167263 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-68576, 333-68578, 333-68580, 333-108210, 333-109079, 333-142447 and 333-166483 on Form S-8 of Virginia Commerce Bancorp,
Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated March 16, 2011, relating to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Virginia Commerce
Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2010.

LOGO

Winchester, Virginia

March 16, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1457

FU JING WANG,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A77-353-602)

Submitted: November 8, 2004 Decided: December 7, 2004

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,

Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller, Office of Immigration

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*Wang abandoned her challenge to the Board’s denial of her

applications for withholding of removal and withholding under the

Convention Against Torture. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Fu Jing Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s

Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming the immigration judge’s decision

denying asylum, withholding of removal and withholding under the

Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we

deny the petition for review.

The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive

“unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.”

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We have reviewed the immigration

judge’s decision and the administrative record and find the record

supports the conclusion that Wang failed to establish past

persecution or a well founded fear of persecution. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.13(a) (2004) (stating that the burden of proof is on the

alien to establish his eligibility for asylum); INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992). Because the decision in

this case is not manifestly contrary to law, we cannot grant the

relief Wang seeks.* 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 9, 2019

No. 04-18-00936-CV

Christopher BAKER, David Brown, and James Kerr,

Appellants

v.

James E. BENNETT, Jr., Dennis Worley, Sterling Koonce, Flying A Limited Partnership L.P., 

Joseph W. Forbes, Jr., Kenneth Clark, James Boggess, Joel Webb, Jaimie Livingston, David 

Miner, Ronald English and MDF, LLC,

Appellees

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI05787

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellants have filed an “Unopposed Motion for Permission to View Sealed Portions of 

Clerk’s Record.” Appellants’ motion is GRANTED. We ORDER that the attorneys for the 

parties in this appeal shall have access to the sealed volumes of the clerk’s record (Volumes 2 

and 3) on file with this Court. The Clerk of this Court is directed to unseal the record for the sole 

purpose of providing a copy to counsel for appellants. All counsel are ordered not to share the 

contents of the sealed record with any person except to the extent necessary to prepare the 

appellate brief. 

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 9th day of January, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### Lynch *v.*Cheltenham Township, Appellant.

Argued January 20, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*558April 23, 1969:

*Samuel H. High,, Jr.,*with him *High, Swartz, Roberts & Seidel,*for appellant.

*Thomas E. Waters, Jr.,*with him *Waters, Fleer, Cooper S Callager,*for appellee.

Opinion

Pee Otjkiam,

Judgment affirmed.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 /s/ Anthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    /s/ Craig D. AboltAnthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    Craig D. AboltChief Executive Officer and President
    
    
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust
15, 2005
    
    
    
    August 15, 2005
<PAGE>
         It is hereby witnessed and agreed this 18th day of October, 2000 by and
between Interallied Group, Inc. (formerly known as Interallied Restaurant Group,
Inc.), 1 Jacqueline St. New Windsor, New York 12553 and Interallied Group of
Rochester LLC (hereinafter the Company) with offices c/o PF Financial Services,
Inc., 706 Third Avenue, New York 10017 as follows:

         Whereas, Interallied Group, Inc. has agreed to transfer its 25%
interest in Interallied Group of Rochester LLC to the Company, and

         Whereas, in consideration of said transfer the Company has agreed to
indemnify and hold harmless Interallied Group, Inc. for any and all claims,
guarantees or calls which may be or have been made at anytime prior or
subsequent to the date hereof,

         Now Therefore it is agreed as follows;

         The parties respectively ratify the transfer of Interallied Group
Inc.'s 25% interest in Interallied Group of Rochester LLC to the Company

         Interallied Group of Rochester LLC agrees to save and hold harmless
Interallied Group, Inc. and its shareholder for any claims, causes of action
which may be asserted at anytime against the Corporation or its representatives
arising out of the various business endeavors of the Corporation not limited to
but including any guarantees of payment of leases of real or personal property
and/or any obligation created by the Company's Operating Agreement, By-Laws or
Article.

         Each of the signatories hereto represents that the execution of this
agreement is made in the ordinary course of business of the entities in behalf
of which they have affixed their respective signatures.

         Each of the signatories hereto represents that this transaction has
been authorized by the respective shareholders, officers and directors of the
respective entities and that each signatories has been duly authorized to
execute this agreement by said shareholders, officers and directors.





                                              Interallied Group, Inc.

                                         By:  /s/ MAUREEN SIRULL
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Maureen Sirull

                                              Interallied Group of Rochester LLC

                                         By:  /s/ HOWARD FREEDMAN
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Howard Freedman
YVES SAINTYL

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

C ASE NO. 1D 14

- 3402

Opinion filed August 19, 2014.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original

Jurisdiction

.

Yves Saintyl, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER C URIAM.

DISMISSED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(6)(C).

ROBERTS, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ.

, CONCUR.
No. *63188.*

#### F. C. Mackay *v.*United States,

protests 233229-K and 234426-K (Pembina).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fresh or frozen boneless pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of: Abstract 59714, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.