alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kristin A. Stainbrook, Respondent, v Colleges of the Senecas, Doing Business as Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Appellant.

[656 NYS2d 946]

Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Henry, Jr., J.), entered August 1, 1996 in Albany County, which denied defendant’s motion for a change of venue.

On or about January 8, 1994 while a student at William Smith College in Ontario County, plaintiff was assaulted and raped in her dormitory room by a student from Hobart College. In April 1996, plaintiff commenced this action in Albany County against defendant. Following joinder of issue, defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change venue from Albany County to Ontario County. Supreme Court denied the motion and defendant appeals.

We affirm. CPLR 510 (3) provides for a discretionary change of venue where "the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change”. The party seeking the change of venue bears the burden of proof (see, *Andros v Roderick,*162 AD2d 813, 814). Indeed, in order to demonstrate that venue should be changed, the moving party must "supply the names, addresses and occupations of the witnesses whose convenience he claims will be affected, indicate that the prospective witnesses have been contacted and are willing to testify on his behalf and specify the substance of each witness’s testimony, which must be necessary and material” *(id.,*at 814; *see, O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp.,*207 AD2d 169, 172-173; *Hojohn v Hamilton,*78 AD2d 570).

Based upon our review of defendant’s papers in support of the motion, we find that it has failed to satisfy these requirements. Significantly, while defendant has identified the names of various witnesses it claims have knowledge pertinent to its defense of the action, it has failed to indicate that such witnesses have been contacted and are willing to testify or the substance of the witnesses’ testimony. Consequently, we cannot conclude that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion *(see, Andros v Roderick, supra; see also, Hirsch v Canoha Transp.,*124 AD2d 440).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MANILA LAKMAITREE,

Appellant,

v.

21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1263

[March 2, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 

062015CA011997AXXXCE.

Brian Korte of Korte & Wortman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Sonia Henriques McDowell of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., 

Orlando, for appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the court on remand from the Florida Supreme 

Court. We reverse the summary final judgment and remand to the circuit

court for further proceedings consistent with Page v. Deutsche Bank Trust 

Company Americas, 308 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 2020). 

GROSS, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2022244EN.01003201.xml

| 27.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Mutondo v Council

(Case T-109/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territories of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons covered - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures)

(2022/C 244/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck. P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/2033 of 10 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 30) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2021 of 10 December 2020 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2020 L 419, p. 5), in so far as those acts concern him.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Kalev Mutondo to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Kalev Mutondo to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
# C_2022198EN.01004202.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2022 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO ...?)

(Case T-196/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark SO ...? - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2022/C 198/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France) (represented by: F. Drageon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: J. Quirin and J. P. Jacquey, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 (Case R 1235/2020 4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Lea Nature Services and Debonair Trading Internacional.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lea Nature Services to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lea Nature Services to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
1

Sievers, Michael E.

From: Sievers, Michael E.

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 5:25 PM

To: Nia.Daniels@faa.gov

Cc: 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions@faa.gov; 333exemptions@faa.gov

Subject: RE: Petition for Exemption: Duke Energy Business Service, LLC (Docket No. 

FAA-2015-0789)

Attachments: FAA Docket No FAA-2015-0789 - Specified sUAS (DEBS) (56024744_3)-c.pdf

Importance: High

Dear Ms. Daniels:

Many thanks for your inquiry and for taking the time to speak with me a few days ago.   

I have attached to this email a chart that lists the information you have requested for a total of 15 UAS.  As discussed,

the petition we submitted (and which was assigned the above‐referenced docket number) requested an exemption that

would permit the operation of any UAS craft previously or hereafter approved by the FAA by way of another Section 333

exemption grant.  We are submitting the attached list of specified UAS so that the FAA can make a positive

determination on this petition without delay.  We respectfully request, however, that the broader request articulated

by this petition continue, thereafter, to be considered by the FAA.   

We stand ready to discuss any questions you may have.

Immediately after transmittal of this email, I will upload a copy of this submission directly to the docket folder at

www.regulations.gov.

Many thanks,

Mike

Michael E. Sievers 

Hunton & Williams LLP 

Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 

951 East Byrd Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074 

(804) 788-8532 (direct) 

(804) 343-4609 (fax) 

msievers@hunton.com

From: Nia.Daniels@faa.gov [mailto:Nia.Daniels@faa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:50 PM 

To: Sievers, Michael E. 

Cc: 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions@faa.gov

Subject: Petition for Exemption: Duke Energy Business Service, LLC (Docket No. FAA-2015-0789) 

May 28, 2015 
2

Dear Mr. Sievers: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0789). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make, model, and type (i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by June 11, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 544 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 544

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 28, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3171) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to reorganize the 
Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made 
in order by this resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Agriculture. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Agriculture now printed 
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
considered as read. All points of order against the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate 
vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1136

For the relief of Alfredo Tolentino of Honolulu, Hawaii.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 22, 1993

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

For the relief of Alfredo Tolentino of Honolulu, Hawaii.

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

3 That, notwithstanding the provisions of section 8337(b)

4 of title 5, United States Code, Alfredo Tolentino of Hono5 lulu, Hawaii may file an application no later than 60 days

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act with the Office

7 of Personnel Management for a claim of disability retire8 ment under the provisions of such section.

Æ
#### John Kent, Appellant, *v.*Gustave Gross, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

May, 1913.)

Judgments — action for rent — eviction.

Where, in an action for rent, defendant -alleging loss of the beneficial use of a dumb-waiter from the basement to his store pleads a partial eviction, a judgment in plaintiff’s favor is *res adjudicada*in a subsequent action for rent, in the absence of proof that the loss of the use of the dumb-waiter first occurred, after the period covered by the previous judgment.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, entered in favor of the defendant by direction of the court, and also from an order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.

Ely Rosenberg (Max Brown, of counsel), for appellant.

Albert J. Rifkind (Philip C. Samuels, of counsel), for respondent.

*495Guy, J.

This is an action for rent of the store and basement óf 120 Second avenue as a bakery.

The defence was partial eviction by reason of being deprived of the use of a dumb-waiter from the basement to the store.

The plaintiff replied setting up that the cause of action was *res adjudicata,*in that in an action in the Municipal Court between the same parties, for rent due under the same lease, the defendant set up the same defence of partial eviction by reason of the alleged loss of the beneficial use of the dumb-waiter, and the plaintiff recovered judgment thereon in said action, which judgment was affirmed by this court. The judgment-roll in that action was offered and excluded, without exception, the court suggesting that the offer should be made at a later period of the trial. Subsequently plaintiff undertook to prove the bringing of the Municipal Court action, but evidence on that point was excluded and an exception noted. This ruling was erroneous. In the absence of any proof or claim that the loss of the use of the dumb-waiter first occurred after the period covered by the Municipal Court action, the judgment in the plaintiff’s favor in that action was *res adjudicata*against the claim that there had been a partial eviction (Reich v. Cochran, 151 N. Y. 122; 201 id. 450, 452; Jarvis v. Driggs, 69 id. 143) and evidence establishing that defense was clearly admissible.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Gebabd and Page, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
# C_2022051EN.01003101.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Jieyang Defa Industry v EUIPO — Mattel (Doll’s Head)

(Case T-84/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a doll’s head - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Degree of freedom of the designer - No different overall impression - Articles 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2022/C 51/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jieyang Defa Industry Co. Ltd (Jieyang, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias and F. Codevelle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mattel, Inc. (El Segundo, California, United States) (represented by: A. Pompe-Ciszewska and P. Mleczak, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2020 (Case R 2021/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mattel and Jieyang Defa Industry Co.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jieyang Defa Industry Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jieyang Defa Industry Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 110, 29.3.2021.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 21, 2009 

y1214 

Order 

 

December 21, 2009 

138622(48) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138622 

 COA: 281940 

St Clair CC: 07-000192-FC 

AJENE MARK JORDAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

28, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ViroPharma Incorporated (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Company.



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michel de Rosen                                                      
|Michel de Rosen                                                          
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
|                                                                         
|May 4, 2006                                                              



|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Vincent J. Milano                                                         
|Vincent J. Milano                                                             
|Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|                                                                              
|May 4, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification

I, Howard E. Ehler, certify that:

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GeoResources, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Howard E. Ehler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Howard E. EhlerHoward E. EhlerChief Financial OfficerAugust 6, 2009
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                              HARBINGER CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three Months Ended        Six Months Ended
                                                                June 30,                 June 30,
                                                          --------------------      --------------------
                                                            1999         1998        1999         1998
                                                          -------      -------      -------      -------
<S>                                                       <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Basic:

    Net income available to common
      shareholders...............................         $ 5,277      $ 1,959      $ 7,617      $   622
                                                          =======      =======      =======      =======

    Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding.........................          38,294       41,853       39,082       41,451
                                                          =======      =======      =======      =======

    Basic earnings per share.....................         $  0.14      $  0.05      $  0.19      $  0.01
                                                          =======      =======      =======      =======

Diluted :

    Net income available to common
      shareholders...............................         $ 5,277      $ 1,959      $ 7,617      $   622
                                                          =======      =======      =======      =======

    Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding.........................          38,294       41,853       39,082       41,451

    Effect of potentially dilutive stock options and
      warrants...................................           1,387        2,627        1,964        2,652
                                                          -------      -------      -------      -------

    Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding assuming dilution.......          39,681       44,480       41,046       44,103
                                                          =======      =======      =======      =======

    Diluted earnings per share................. .         $  0.13      $  0.04      $  0.19      $  0.01
                                                          =======      =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>