alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Samy Lapointe, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Severiano Mendoza, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Severiano Mendoza, appellant pro se.Samy Lapointe, respondent pro se (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Joy F. Campanelli, J.), entered April 26, 2017. The order denied defendant's motion to vacate an arbitrator's award and, in effect, a judgment of that court entered October 16, 2017 pursuant to the arbitrator's award.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover $5,000 for loss of employment. The parties agreed to submit the matter to arbitration and signed a "consent to arbitration," advising them that the arbitration award was final and that no appeal would be permitted. Following the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator awarded plaintiff $5,000. Defendant subsequently moved to vacate the arbitrator's award. On October 16, 2017, a judgment was entered pursuant to the arbitrator's award (<i>see</i> Uniform Rules for NY City Civ Ct [22 NYCRR] ยง 208.41 [n] [5]). Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying his motion to vacate the arbitrator's award and, in effect, the judgment entered pursuant thereto.</p><p>A party seeking to vacate a small claims arbitration award, and a judgment entered pursuant thereto, bears the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, one of the <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>statutory grounds enumerated in CPLR 7511 (b) (<a href="../2007/2007_08452.htm" target="_blank"><i>see e.g. Matter of Arab v ATC Jewelers, Inc.</i>, 45 AD3d 588</a> [2007]; <a href="../2011/2011_50987.htm" target="_blank"><i>May v Scotto-D'Abusco</i>, 31 Misc 3d 148</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50987[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]). Here, defendant failed to establish any ground under CPLR 7511 (b) warranting the vacatur of the award.</p><p>We note that this court does not consider documents attached to defendant's brief on appeal, as they are dehors the record (<i>see Chimarios v Duhl</i>, 152 AD2d 508 [1989]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: May 24, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
254 La. 866

#### Mrs. Catherine DeBruyn FREDERIC and Jules Frederic v. WINN-DIXIE LOUISIANA, INC. and The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York.

No. 49978.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1969.

In re: Mrs. Catherine DeBruyn, wife of Jules Frederic, and Jules Frederic, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 227 So.2d 387.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error in the judgment complained of.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - 32 CFR Part 149
          - [Docket ID: DOD-2017-OS-0050]
          - RIN 0790-AJ59

# AGENCY:

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, DoD.

# ACTION:

Final rule.

# SUMMARY:

This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning the Technical Surveillance Countermeasures (TSCM) Program. DoD originally determined that rulemaking was required based on the portion of this part that speaks to providing assistance to non-DoD agencies. However, this part places no burden on other agencies. The description of the relationship with other agencies is in accordance with federal law, and this part is unnecessary. Therefore, this part can be removed from the CFR.

# DATES:

This rule is effective on June 14, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Davison, 703-697-4850.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

It has been determined that publication of this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD internal policies and procedures that are publically available on the Department's issuance website.

                    This part contains internal DoD requirements and thus, does not fiscally impact parties outside of DoD. DoD's internal DoD Instruction 5240.05, “Technical Surveillance Countermeasures (TSCM),” remains in effect exclusively for the management of TSCM in DoD and is available at                     *http://www.esd.whs.mil/​Portals/​54/​Documents/​DD/​issuances/​dodi/​524005_​2014.pdf.*

This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” does not apply.

# List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 149

      - Classified information
      - Investigations

# PART 149—[REMOVED]

Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 149 is removed.

Dated: June 11, 2018.

Shelly E. Finke,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2018-12778 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0023

IN THE MATTER OF:

D

MAY 1 8 2021

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

Fitatt. of Montana

H.R., ORDER

A Youth in Need of Care.

Counsel for the appellant mother of H.R. filed a motion and brief asking to be

allowed to withdraw from this appeal on grounds that counsel has been unable to find any

nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The mother was granted time to file a

response, but no response was filed.

The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2),

MCA, and Anders. We conclude there are no arguments with potential legal merit that

could be raised in the mother's appeal in this case.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to

the appellant mother personally.

DATED this Sf ay of May, 2021.

Chief Justice

05/18/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0023
Justices

2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


             INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULES

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-58684, 333-45638, 333-66065, 333-72288 and 333-81430 of Restoration
Hardware, Inc. on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-62178 of
Restoration Hardware, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated April 23, 2002,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Restoration Hardware, Inc. for
the year ended February 2, 2002.

Our audits of the financial statements referred to in our aforementioned report
also included the financial statement schedule of Restoration Hardware, Inc.,
listed in Item 14(a)(2). This financial statement schedule is the responsibility
of the Corporation's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
based on our audit. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

San Francisco, California
May 3, 2002
<PAGE>
                         MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                                                                    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

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C ss. 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, (the "Form 10-Q") of Mackinac
Financial Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, Paul D. Tobias, Chairman of the Issuer, certify that:

     (1)  The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Issuer.


/s/ Paul D. Tobias
------------------------------
Paul D. Tobias
Chairman
(chief executive officer)

Date: November 11, 2005
Slip Op. 99-64

United States Court of International Trade

Before: James L. Watson, Senior Judge

 

 Bestfoods (formerly known as CPC : Court No. 95–02-00144

International, Inc.), 

 :

Plaintiff,

 :

 v. 

 :

United States,

 :

 Defendant. 

 : 

Judgment

This court's judgment for defendant entered pursuant to CPC Int'l. v. United States, 971 F.

Supp. 574 (CIT 1997), having been cross-appealed by the parties, reversed favorably to

defendant cross-appellant, vacated, and the action remanded to permit Bestfoods to pursue any

further arguments it might have, Bestfoods (formerly known as CPC International v. United

States, 165 F. 3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ( issued as a mandate on March 18, 1999); and

This action, previously assigned to the Senior Judge Bernard Newman, having been

reassigned to the undersigned on the 26th day of May 1999, and

 No further arguments having been submitted by counsel for plaintiff to this court

pursuant to the remand, and no further action having been taken by either party in this case; 

 As the prior judgment for defendant, premised on the court's conclusion that marking

would be required under the pre-NAFTA "substantial transformation" test was vacated 

 
on appeal, it hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this action be, and

hereby, is dismissed. 

Dated: New York, New York

July 15, 1999 

 James L. Watson, Senior Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-Q for the period ended April 29, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>         1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                           3,149
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,193
<INVENTORY>                                     48,943
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,531
<PP&E>                                          68,802
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 287,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,523
<BONDS>                                        158,891
<COMMON>                                           198
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   287,101
<SALES>                                        154,621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,621
<CGS>                                          112,010
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,564
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,794
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,382
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,412
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,412
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Nursing Research Initial Review Group.                    

*Date:*                         June 21, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20817.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Weiqun Li, MD, Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 710, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-5966,                         *wli@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 1, 2018.

Sylvia L. Neal,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-12177 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### CITY OF TAMPA, Petitioner, v. Earl J. LONG and Leila Long, husband and wife and as legal guardian of Tanya Estes, Respondents.

No. 78-1006.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 27, 1978.

*726Thomas K. Morrison, Asst. City Atty., Tampa, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied without prejudice to the right of petitioner to seek review of the matters therein by way of an appeal from the final judgment. *Santini Brothers, Inc. v. Grover,*338 So.2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *Wright v. Sterling Drugs, Inc.,*287 So.2d 376 (Fla.2d DCA 1973).

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)**

**OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Cascade Microtech, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Eric W. Strid, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the bestof my knowledge,:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Eric W. Strid       |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Eric  W. Strid           |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| Cascade  Microtech, Inc. |
| March  15, 2006          |

 

This certification ismade solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any otherpurpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Cascade Microtech, Inc. and will be retained by CascadeMicrotech, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JAKWAN ARCHIE GREEN,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 197 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### Robert J. HASLETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-150.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 26, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-69982) pertaining to the AER Energy Resources, Inc. 1992 Stock
Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-69462) pertaining
to the AER Energy Resources, Inc. 1993 Non-Employee Director's Restricted Stock
Award Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-89068) pertaining
to the AER Energy Resources, Inc./H. Douglas Johns Stock Option Agreement of our
report dated January 19, 1998, with respect to the financial statements of AER
Energy Resources, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1997.


                                                 /s/  Ernst & Young LLP

                                                      ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 24, 1998
<PAGE>
                         MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C ss. 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, (the "Form 10-Q") of Mackinac
Financial Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, Eliot R. Stark, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
     the Issuer, certify that:

     (1)  The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Issuer.

/s/ Eliot R. Stark
-----------------------------------------------------
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(chief financial officer)

Date: November 11, 2005
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ENACTED BY  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of THQ Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Colin L. Slade, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:



| |  | /s/ Colin L. SladeColin L. Slade
Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
May 28, 2008
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

---



QuickLinks
#### Donahue L. WEST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 40438.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 25, 1971.

Appeal dismissed. 239 So.2d 611.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARL- • TON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### Willie Nathan COX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### DAYTONA BEACH, FLA. COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. RENTAL CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. N-175.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 22, 1970.

Hutchison & Leffler, Sanford, and Ben H. Wilkinson, of Ervin, Pennington, Varn & Jacobs, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Leon G. van Wert, Daytona Beach, and Leonard Pepper, Tallahassee, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the final decree of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and SPECTOR and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.