alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Heritage Art Galleries, Ltd., Appellant, v Joseph Raia et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*for ejectment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), entered September 12, 1989, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

This action arises out of a contract for the sale of real property in exchange for a substantial initial payment coupled with monthly installment payments in the amount of $1,343 over a 15-year period. These payments were to be partially credited toward the purchase price and partially toward tax, water and sewer charges. The contract additionally obligated the vendees to maintain fire insurance for the premises and to keep the premises in good repair.

The vendor, Heritage Art Galleries, Ltd., commenced this action alleging that the vendees, Joseph Raía and Pina Ann Pucci, breached the contract by failing to make required payments, to insure the premises against fire, and to maintain the premises in good repair. In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks to eject the defendants from the premises, to accelerate the remaining payments due under the contract, and to cancel the contract. After the defendants failed to answer the complaint or to appear, the plaintiff moved pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter a default judgment against them. The Supreme Court denied this motion.

We disagree with the plaintiff’s contention that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying its motion for leave to enter a default judgment. The order of ejectment requested in the complaint is improper under the circumstances. "[T]he execution of a contract for the purchase of real estate and the making of a part payment gives a contract vendee equitable title to the property and an equitable lien in the amount of the payment” *(Pobich Natl. Alliance v White Eagle Hall Co.,*98 AD2d 400, 405, citing *Elterman v Hyman,*192 NY 113; *Bean v Walker,*95 AD2d 70). Further, a contract vendee who holds equitable title occupies the same position as the common-law mortgagor. Thus, the contract vendor may not enforce its rights by the simple expedient of an action in ejectment but must instead proceed to foreclose the vendee’s equitable title *(see, Bean v Walker, supra,*at 75; 4 Pomeroy, *442Equity Jurisprudence §§ 1260, 1261). The facts before us indicate that part payment has been made under the contract, thereby giving the defendants equitable title to the property. Consequently, the plaintiff may not enforce its rights by an action in ejectment, but must instead proceed to foreclose the defendants’ equitable title or bring an action at law for the purchase price *(see, Bean v Walker, supra,*at 75; 4 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence §§ 1260, 1262).

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, we find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the other relief requested *(see,*CPLR 3013; *cf., Stern v Consumer Equities Assocs.,*160 AD2d 993, 994). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350,


Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code)




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Smart Balance, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the
“Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      November 5, 2009
                            By:
                            /s/Alan S. GeverAlan
      S. GeverExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      financial officer of
Registrant)
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1657 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the exception from 

the 10 percent penalty for early withdrawals from governmental plans 

for qualified public safety employees. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 

Mr. NELSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the exception from the 10 percent penalty for early withdrawals from governmental plans for qualified public 

safety employees. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF EXCEPTION FROM 10 PER4 CENT EARLY WITHDRAWAL PENALTY FOR 

5 PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES. 

6 (a) REPEAL OF RESTRICTION TO DEFINED BENEFIT

7 PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) of section 72(t)(10)(A) of the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1657 IS

1 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

2 ‘‘which is a defined benefit plan’’. 

3 (b) APPLICATION TO ANNUITIES COMMENCING BE4 FORE THE PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006.—Para5 graph (10) of section 72(t) is amended by adding at the 

6 end the following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(C) TRANSITIONAL RULE FOR ANNU8 ITIES.—Paragraph (4) shall not apply to any 

9 modification to a series of substantially equal 

10 periodic payments which are made with respect 

11 to a qualified public safety employee if such se12 ries of payments commenced— 

13 ‘‘(i) before the date of the enactment 

14 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, and 

15 ‘‘(ii) after such qualified public safety 

16 employee’s separation from service after 

17 attainment of age 50.’’. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

19 (1) REPEAL OF RESTRICTION TO DEFINED

20 BENEFIT PLANS.—The amendment made by sub21 section (a) shall apply to distributions made after 

22 the date of the enactment of the Pension Protection 

23 Act of 2006. 

24 (2) TRANSITIONAL RULE FOR ANNUITIES.—The 

25 amendment made by subsection (b) shall apply to 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1657 IS

1 modifications made after the date of the enactment 

2 of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 27 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.JESUS MANUEL ORTEGASANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-2092 (D.C. No. CIV 95-1276-JC/LEG)

(D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) requires a party appealin g the denial of a

§ 2255 motion to obtain a certificate of appealabil ity. This requirement became effective April 24, 1996, and is not applied retroa ctively to this § 2255 appeal, which was filed on April 18, 1996. See United States v. Lopez , 100 F.3d 113, 117 (10th Cir. 1996). -2- Petitioner/Appellant Jesus Manuel Ortega-Sanchez ap peals the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate or corre ct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm for substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation and adopted by the district court. R. Vol. I at tabs 10, 13. AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Adams, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered July 26, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of seven years to life, unanimously affirmed.

On September 12, 1988, an undercover police officer purchased a kilogram of cocaine at a grocery store in Kings County. Defendant was in the store during the sale. Later, when back-up officers approached the premises to effectuate arrests, defendant, who had stationed himself outside of the store, ran inside and threw down a clear plastic bag before he was apprehended at the rear of the premises. The clear plastic bag contained cocaine. A second bag containing cocaine was found after a search of defendant’s person.

The order denying suppression of the bag and its contents should be affirmed. The hearing court’s conclusion that defen*208dant abandoned a clear plastic bag is supported by the record. The officers who converged on the grocery were acting on the knowledge that a drug transaction had occurred inside the premises. The bare fact that defendant chose to run inside and to throw down a bag at the arrival of the police does not show that the officers had improperly targeted him. There was no interaction between the police and defendant until after he betrayed his guilty conscience. *(Compare, People v Leung,*68 NY2d 734, 736, *with People v Howard,*50 NY2d 583, 587.) Moreover, the officers had an articulable basis for approaching defendant. He had been inside the grocery when the drug deal had been transacted. *(People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223; *see, People v Ortiz,*103 AD2d 303, 306, *affd*64 NY2d 997.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Ross and Smith, JJ.
<PAGE>

                           EXHIBIT 32.1-CERTIFICATION

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                    (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350,
                   CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Asia Automotive Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006
(the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information
contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: August 15, 2006                  /s/ William R. Herren
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        William R. Herren
                                        Chairman of the Board


                                        /s/ Rudy Wilson
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Rudy Wilson
                                        Chief Executive Officer

     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.
Order entered September 10, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 11 - 00970 - CV CTMI, LLC, MARK BOOZ ER AND JERROD RAYMON D, Appellant s V. RAY FISCHER AND CORP ORATE TAX MANAGEMENT , INC., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 192 nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 11 - 08088 - K



### O RDER Appellees’ first unopposed motion to extend time to file appellees’ motion for rehearing is GRANTED . The motion for rehearing is now due October 4, 2013.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1763 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the deduction for 

advertising and promotional expenses for prescription pharmaceuticals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 8, 2009 

Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and Mr. BROWN) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the 

deduction for advertising and promotional expenses for 

prescription pharmaceuticals. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Americans 

5 from Drug Marketing Act’’. 


bajohnson on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1763 IS

1 SEC. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR ADVERTISING 

2 AND PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES FOR PRE3 SCRIPTION PHARMACEUTICALS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part IX of subchapter B of chap5 ter 1 of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

6 (relating to items not deductible) is amended by adding 

7 at the end the following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 280I. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR PRESCRIP9 TION PHARMACEUTICALS ADVERTISING AND 

10 PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES. 

11 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No deduction shall be allowed 

12 under this chapter for expenses relating to advertising or 

13 promoting the sale and use of prescription pharma14 ceuticals for any taxable year. 

15 ‘‘(b) ADVERTISING OR PROMOTING.—For purposes of 

16 this section, the term ‘advertising or promoting’ includes 

17 direct to consumer advertising in any media and any activ18 ity designed to promote the use of a prescription pharma19 ceutical directed to providers or others who may make de20 cisions about the use of prescription pharmaceuticals (in21 cluding the provision of product samples, free trials, and 

22 starter kits).’’. 

23 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec24 tions for such part IX of the Internal Revenue Code of 

25 1986 is amended by adding after the item relating to sec26 tion 280H the following new item: 


bajohnson on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1763 IS

‘‘Sec. 280I. Disallowance of deduction for prescription pharmaceuticals advertising and promotional expenses.’’. 

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years 

4 ending after such date. 

Æ 


bajohnson on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### BONNIE JEAN FORESHAW *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

The petitioner Bonnie Jean Foreshaw’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 122 (AC 16276), is denied.

*936
      *Diane Polan,*in support of the petition.

*Rita M. Shair,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided May 7, 1998

KATZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 48497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20006]

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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Friday, August 17, 2012, 12:00 p.m.

PLACE: Broadcasting Board of Governors, Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 
Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20237.

SUBJECT: Notice of Closed Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors.

SUMMARY: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will 
meet in a special session, to be conducted telephonically, to receive 
and consider staff recommendations regarding the Agency's FY 2014 
budget proposal. According to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
Circular A-11, Section 22.1, all agency budgetary materials and data 
are considered confidential prior to the President submitting a budget 
to Congress. In accordance with section 22.5 of Circular A-11, the BBG 
has determined that its meeting should be closed to public observation 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B). In accordance with the Government 
in the Sunshine Act and BBG policies, the meeting will be recorded and 
a transcription of the proceedings, subject to the redaction of 
information protected by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), will be made available 
to the public. The publicly-releasable transcript will be available for 
download at www.bbg.gov within 21 days of the date of the meeting.
    MEMBER VOTES TO CLOSE THE MEETING:

Victor Ashe--No
Michael Lynton--Yes
Susan McCue--Yes
Michael Meehan--Yes
Dennis Mulhaupt--Yes
Dana Perino--Yes
Tara Sonenshine--Yes

    Statements from individual Board members explaining their votes can 
be found on the BBG Web site.

    EXPECTED ATTENDEES:

Victor Ashe, BBG Member
Michael Lynton, BBG Member and Presiding Governor (via telephone)
Susan McCue, BBG Member (via telephone)
Michael Meehan, BBG Member (via telephone)
Dennis Mulhaupt, BBG Member and Alternate Presiding Governor (via 
telephone)
Dana Perino, BBG Member (via telephone)
Tara Sonenshine, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public 
Affairs (via telephone)
Richard Lobo, Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB)
Jeffrey Trimble, IBB Deputy Director
Marie Lennon, Chief of Staff
Maryjean Buhler, Chief Financial Officer
Paul Kollmer-Dorsey, Deputy General Counsel and Board Secretary
Lynne Weil, Director of Communications and External Affairs
Oanh Tran, Director of Board Operations

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel and Board Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20006 Filed 8-10-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CORNELIO HERRERA-MARTINEZ, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3256

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed March 6, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Pinellas County; Michael F. Andrews, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Adaway v. State, 902 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2005); Hughes v. 

State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Steward v. State, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2006); Shortridge v. State, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Brown v. State, 

827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Banaszak v. State, 579 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 

1991); Sims v. State, 141 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). 

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1749 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2010 

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession or use of cell phones and similar wireless devices 

by Federal prisoners. 

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


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 1749 RFH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cell Phone Contraband 

3 Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. WIRELESS DEVICES IN PRISON. 

5 Section 1791 of title 18, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)— 

8 (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘or 

9 (d)(1)(E)’’ and inserting ‘‘, (d)(1)(E), or 

10 (d)(1)(F)’’; and 

11 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking 

12 ‘‘(d)(1)(F)’’ and inserting ‘‘(d)(1)(G)’’; and 

13 (2) in subsection (d)(1)— 

14 (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking 

15 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

16 (B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as 

17 subparagraph (G); and 

18 (C) by inserting after subparagraph (E) 

19 the following: 

20 ‘‘(F) a phone or other device used by a 

21 user of commercial mobile service (as defined in 

22 section 332(d) of the Communications Act of 

23 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d))) in connection with 

24 such service; and’’. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

S 1749 RFH

1 SEC. 3. GAO STUDY. 

2 Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 

3 of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a report 

4 to Congress with research and findings on the following 

5 issues: 

6 (1) A study of telephone rates within State and 

7 Federal prisons and jails to include information on 

8 interstate, intrastate and collect calls made by pris9 oners, including— 

10 (A) the costs of operating inmate telephone 

11 services; 

12 (B) the revenue obtained from inmate tele13 phone systems; 

14 (C) how the revenue from these systems is 

15 used by State governments and the Bureau of 

16 Prisons; and 

17 (D) recommendations to lower telephone 

18 costs to inmates and their families, while still 

19 maintaining sufficient security. 

20 (2) A study of State and Federal efforts to pre21 vent the smuggling of cell phones and other wireless 

22 devices into prisons and jails, including efforts that 

23 State and Federal authorities are making to mini24 mize trafficking of cell phones by guards and other 

25 prison officials and recommendations to reduce the 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
4 

S 1749 RFH

1 number of cell phones that are trafficked into pris2 ons and jails. 

3 (3) A study of cell phone use by inmates in 

4 State and Federal prisons and jails, including— 

5 (A) the cost that inmates pay for cell 

6 phones trafficked into prisons; 

7 (B) the quantity of cell phones that are lo8 cated in State and Federal prisons and jails; 

9 and 

10 (C) the quantity of illegal activity that is 

11 conducted or facilitated as a result of inmate 

12 cell phone use. 

Passed the Senate April 13, 2010. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS