alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Odette Crowell, Appellant, v Long Island Railroad Company et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered February 7, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted defendants’ motion to change venue of this action from New York to Suffolk County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action against both the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) to recover for, *inter alia,*the wrongful death of plaintiff’s decedent, who was struck and killed by a westbound LIRR train while crossing the tracks and property of the LIRR at the Kings Park station located in Suffolk County. The decedent’s injuries and ultimate death are alleged to have resulted from the defendants’ negligence in the design, operation, and construction of the Kings Park station, and in the operation of the locomotive which struck the decedent.

Defendants answered, and after discovery, moved for a *177change of venue from New York to Suffolk County based on the convenience of material witnesses pursuant to CPLR 510 (3). The motion was supported by an attorney’s affirmation setting forth the names of seventeen non-party witnesses, including members of the Suffolk County Police Department, emergency medical personnel, paramedics, and commuters who had witnessed the accident. The motion was granted, and plaintiff now appeals.

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion for a change of venue. (CPLR 510 [3]; *cf., Rosa v Shavelson,*149 AD2d 371.) The general rule that all things being equal, a transitory action should be tried in the county where the cause of action arose *(Moghazeh v ValdesRodriguez,*151 AD2d 428), prevails here. Defendants sustained their burden of proof on the motion by specifying the witnesses affected, the nature of their testimony, and the inconvenience attendant upon trial in New York County *(see, Coles v LaGuardia Med. Group,*161 AD2d 166). The fact that five of the witnesses work and commute to New York County does not *per force*indicate that the IAS court abused its discretion, since the court properly considered the interests of the remaining twelve witnesses. Nor, in view of defendants’ diligent pursuit of discovery, during which facts indicating the necessity of a change of venue were developed, can it be said that the motion was not timely made. *(See, Boriskin v Long Is. Jewish-Hillside Med. Center,*85 AD2d 523.)

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Sara C. Orenstein, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 3, 1989, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, *inter alia,*
      *1030that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The question of whether a claimant has refused alternative employment without good cause is a question of fact for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve *(Matter of Consentino [Ross],*71 AD2d 1042). Here, the record supports the conclusion that claimant left her job because of her dissatisfaction with the reduced earnings that would result from the cut in her work week. As the Board noted, she could have stayed employed and supplemented her earnings with partial unemployment insurance benefits. Therefore, the decision to deny claimant’s application for benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld *(see, supra).*Furthermore, the overpayments made to claimant were properly held recoverable under Labor Law § 597 (4) *(see, Matter of Barber [Roberts]*121 AD2d 767, 769).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

# TIME AND DATE: 

1 p.m., Thursday, March 8, 2012.

# PLACE: 

1325 G Street NW., Suite 800, Boardroom, Washington, DC 20005.

# STATUS: 

Open.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Erica Hall, Assistant Corporate Secretary, (202) 220-2376;                         *ehall@nw.org.*

# AGENDA:

 

I. Call to Order

II. Executive Session

III. Severance Policy

IV. Board Committee Composition/Elections/Appointments

V. Washington, DC Lease Update

VI. Human Resources Updates

VII. Benefit Activities

VIII. Strategic Planning Update

IX. Adjournment

Erica Hall,

Assistant Corporate Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-4908 Filed 2-27-12; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7570-02-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID ROBLES,

 Appellant,

v.

TEXAS 26 LLC,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00102-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law #1

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2022-CCV00176) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding Appellant, David Robles, has not filed his Appellant’s

Brief or filed a motion for extension of time to file a brief, we dismiss this appeal for want of 

prosecution.

On August 18, 2022, the Clerk of the Court sent Appellant a letter indicating that it 

appeared he no longer wished to pursue this appeal, as neither the Appellant’s Brief nor a motion 

for extension of time had been filed. The letter indicated that the Court would submit this case for

dismissal within 10 days unless any party could show grounds for continuing the appeal.

As of this date, Appellant has not filed an Appellant’s Brief or a motion for extension of 

time to file a brief, nor has he responded to correspondence sent by the Court.
2

Pursuant to Rule 42.3(b) and (c), we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

August 30, 2022

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
US ONCOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC.



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 US Oncology Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, R. Dale Ross, Chief Executive 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; and

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



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ R. Dale Ross                                     
|R. Dale Ross                                         
|Chief Executive Officer of US Oncology Holdings, Inc.
|                                                     
|November 14, 2005                                    



-44-
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2183 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2183

 To extend the suspension of duty on Styrene, ar-ethyl-, polymer with 
             divinylbenzene and styrene beads with low ash.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the suspension of duty on Styrene, ar-ethyl-, polymer with 
             divinylbenzene and styrene beads with low ash.

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

SECTION 1. STYRENE, AR-ETHYL-, POLYMER WITH DIVINYLBENZENE AND STYRENE 
              BEADS WITH LOW ASH.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.40 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Styrene, ar-ethyl-, polymer 
with divinylbenzene and styrene beads with low ash) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Nick Riehle, Vice President, Administration and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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 as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ J. Nick RiehleJ. Nick RiehleVice President, Administration and Chief Financial OfficerMay 5, 2009
#### Lesta W. Stacom, Appellant, v Benjamin Wunsch, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered June 18, 1990, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

On an earlier appeal (162 AD2d 170, *lv and rearg denied*[M-3122], l*v dismissed*77 NY2d 873), we determined that plaintiff had ratified the separation agreement by accepting its benefits for a period of five years, without protest. Prior to the resolution of this earlier appeal, plaintiff amended her complaint to assert four causes of action sounding in prima facie tort, fraud and constructive trust. Thereafter, defendant successfully moved to dismiss these claims.

In view of plaintiff’s ratification of the separation agreement, the general release contained therein encompasses, and thus bars, claims for constructive trust and fraud. *(Shalmoni v Shalmoni,*141 AD2d 628, *lv dismissed*73 NY2d 851.) Furthermore, plaintiff’s prima facie tort claims are barred by the applicable three year statute of limitations period (CPLR 214 [4]) and, in any event, are inadequately pleaded *(Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner,*59 NY2d 314).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
Affirmed and Me morandum Opinion filed August 6 , 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00047

- CR NO. 14

- 15

- 00048

- CR

MARQUISE LAWRENCE ROBINSON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1331214 , 1376285

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant appeals two conviction s for aggravated robbery with a deadly

weapon . Appellant’s appointed counse l filed a brief in each appeal which s he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Each brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable2

grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

C op ies of counsel’s brief s were delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record s and file a pro se r esponse. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have reviewed the record s and counsel’s brief s carefully and agree each appeal s is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error
in either record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds
for review. S

ee Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment s of the trial court are affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown, and Wise

Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1848 

To modify and extend the suspension of duty on fludioxinil technical. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

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

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To modify and extend the suspension of duty on fludioxinil 

technical. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FLUDIOXINIL TECHNICAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.54 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 fludioxinil technical) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘1.6 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘1.0 

8 percent’’; and 

9 (2) by striking the date in the effective period 

10 column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1848 IS

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
Order entered February 18, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 21 - 00242 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF M.C.M. AND M.A.M., CHILDREN

No. 05 - 21 - 00360 - CV MOLLY WILKERSON, A pp ellant

V. MARK MALDONADO, A ppellee No. 05 - 21 - 00373 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF M.C.M. AND M.A.M., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 366 - 53554 - 2020 , 366 - 51795 - 2021, and 366 - 50788 - 2021 O RDE R Before the Court is the February 17, 2022 request of Antoinette Varela, Official Court Reporter for the 366th Judicial District Court, for an extension oftime to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and extend the time to

March 21, 2022

. / s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1

AVIRON
FORM 1998 10K
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8, No. 333-17029 and 333-58955) pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive
Plan, Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1996 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option
Plan and the Non-Plan Option Grants and in the Registration Statements (Forms
S-3, No. 333-41649 and 333-50505) of Aviron of our report dated February 17,
1999, with respect to the financial statements of Aviron included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.

                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Palo Alto, California
March 25, 1999
**EXHIBIT 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM****We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-98440, 33-98442,33-98444, 33-98446, 333-21795, 333-21799, 333-70599, 333-35812, 333-35814, 333-50322, 333-91490,333-101280, 333-101284, 333-101881 and 333-109975 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No.333-50494 on Form S-3 of our report dated September 8, 2006, relating to the financial statementsand financial statement schedule of CheckFree Corporation (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption of Statement ofFinancial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), “Share Based Payment”), and our report dated September8, 2006 relating to management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CheckFree Corporation for the year endedJune 30, 2006.****/s/* DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP***
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Triple Crown Media. Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and,c)
    
    Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
  Signed:
    /s/ THOMAS J. STULTZThomas J. StultzPresident and Chief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certifications
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)
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: November 30, 2006
    
    /s/ Theodore R. SchroederTheodore R. SchroederPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer of the registrant)
 
 1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: November 30, 2006
    
    /s/ William R. LaRueWilliam R. LaRueSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurerand Secretary(principal financial and accounting
officer of the registrant)
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 DynCorp International LLC
(DynCorp) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen J. Cannon, the Chief Executive Officer of DynCorp, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of DynCorp.

Date: February 23, 2006



/s/    STEPHEN J.
CANNONStephen J. CannonPresident and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)